Is there ever a legitimate reason to have real bullets in a stage gun?

[ParallelLines]

@aceplace57

Mythbusters fired weapons numerous times. But it was carefully supervised and I think they used police ranges.

We didn’t see behind the scenes. I suspect the Talent only held and fired the guns for filming. They were probably secured immediately afterward.

Mythbusters also shot into pools, and a few custom built tanks, and (later) learned that the bullet / explosion proof shields were actually NOT properly rated. But they did consult and presumably follow the advice of firearms and explosives experts on set.

Similar edutainment shows (I’m thinking R. Lee Ermey’s ‘Mail Call’ and the like) also show the host using firearms in a (generally, but not always) safe manner on-screen, with at least the appearance of being fired live. But in these cases, the firearms are expected and (hopefully) treated as live weapons, without the maybe-is-maybe-isn’t of many Hollywood shoots.

Presumably part of the problem is that a ‘real’ looking replica that can accept blanks but not not otherwise live rounds would be much more expensive than a live firearms. Economies of scale and all. Not that this wouldn’t be bad legislation to adopt, but it would be state level, and might again push productions to areas with less regulation, which was reported as an issue for the Rust shoot.

I am not trying to dismiss efforts to pass industry regulation or laws designed to protect against a repeat of the Rust or Crow tragedies, and it was correctly cited upthread that the industry standards if applied correctly would have prevented the most recent tragedy, but finding a one-size-fits all solution might be difficult.

If I were given power to make the regulation, I would probably require a custom pistol grip and action that could only fire blanks, that could be socketed into a wide variety of polymer ‘shells’ that replicate the appearance of a range of firearms.

You’d have a blank-only-firing ‘weapon’, that wouldn’t look anything like a real gun except in general outlines, and a realistic, but inert frame for appearance. Alternately, few outside gun and/or history enthusiasts can easily tell the difference at sight between various types of polymer semi-autos and revolvers, allowing for the creation of a class of realistic replicas that are blank-only firing and otherwise ‘close enough to pass’ visually.

But there is always room for human error. As an example specific to an OP (although one I would not agree with) - it would be LEGITIMATE in various legal municipalities to carry a personal concealed weapon with live ammo on the set. And some CCW people are . . . lax about keeping possession of weapons under their direct control. Which could result in a live weapon, with live ammo being left in a position where another incautious person could use it assuming it was a prop.

It would require levels of negligence that would be criminal, but it would be both legit reason to have live weapons and ammo on the set and LEGAL - just not smart.

[hajario]

We had one accident in over 20 years which wouldn’t have happened if the current protocols were followed. I don’t think we need to change any regulations.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

Y’all know that there are really no regulations or rules concerning prop guns and live ammo, right? Who would enforce such rules or regulations?

Movies are made in all kinds of places by all kinds of people and production companies and there is no one organization that can police and enforce any such policy, rule or regulation.

Each production will have their own set of protocols, etc. but there is no guarantee that they will be the same or even similar from one production to the next.

There are best practices and there are certainly people who fall outside those best practices. Hopefully they get hired less frequently than those who adhere to the best and/or proper way to do things, but that’s about it for enforcement.

[Lumpy]

I’m reminded of an episode of “Midsomer Murders”: a stage presentation of “Amadeus” was being performed and the lead actor cut his own throat with a razor that was supposed to have the edge covered. I remember thinking “why the hell would the razor even have a sharp edge to begin with?”

[Saint_Cad]

@RivkahChaya

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.

Nope. The actor’s thinking should be, “I need to fire a .45 ACP in this scene. Let’s me get a hold of a real .45 ACP - not the prop gun - and fire it at a range.”

[Saint_Cad]

I thought it was that the prop razor with no edge was exchanged for a real one.

[pkbites]

@Joey_P

@MikeF

No reason. Period. To have a “prop” that is even capable being loaded with a live round is unforgivable.

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.

You’re way behind on this.
“Guns” like this already exist. I own 3 of them. One looks exactly like a Beretta 92F, one looks exactly like a Glock 17, and one looks exactly like a Walther PPK. They are specifically made to look like these pistols but are not made by those manufacturers.

They fire 8mm blank ammunition and cannot be loaded with regular live ammo. But as stated before even blanks can be dangerous.

They shoot exactly as a real semi-auto does but with minimal recoil. Magazine loads like real, shell casings are ejected like a real pistol. Some of the ammo is loud though not quite as loud as real ammo. Blank ammo is more of a “pop” than a “crack”.

Under state and federal law they are not considered firearms.

Though they are legal to posses in Wisconsin they are not legal to sell here. I own a licensed gun store and I can sell you real guns but not fake ones, go figure.

You can buy them online, however. I know the Sportsmens Guide used to sell them.

[ExTank]

True enough, and my overall point may have gotten lost; basically, I was saying that other businesses, other industries, routinely and safely conduct dangerous operations in hazardous environments by adhering to strict procedures and protocols, using proper tools and equipment.

I see no reason why the movie/TV industry cannot do the same,

[pkbites]

I would say they are. There are zillions of movies and TV shows every year that contain gun fire. And theres been 1 death in like 35 years? While that’s certainly one too many it’s not like theres a pandemic or anything.

[puzzlegal]

I would think that every time you want to show a bullet hitting an object, you would like to shoot a real bullet out of a real gun.

Not bullets hitting people, of course. But if you want to show a bullet hitting a pumpkin, it probably makes sense to film a bullet hitting a pumpkin. I’d think you could do this with a gun that is never used in a way that points it near people.

Maybe you don’t need to… But it’s a reason to want to.

I agree that given the enormous number of gunshots in movies, and the rather small number of accidents, the industry seems to have acceptable protocols. I wonder how many stuntmen die every year in car crashes, for instance.

[MikeF]

I was an LEO for 25 years and on a SWAT team for 10. I continue as a civilian trainer at an academy. We often use “weapons” that fire either plastic BBs or marking cartridges. Some of these weapons look exactly like the real thing or are actual duty weapons temporarily modified for training purposes. When so modified they are not capable of chambering a live round. It takes only a minute or two to do this and the number of safety check we do is borderline ridiculous but we’ve never had a problem with one of these training weapons. When problems do occur during this type of training it is almost always due to someone bringing a real weapon onto the “set” after going to lunch or similar. In fifteen years I had one plain clothes guy try to bring a real gun into the scenario even after being asked if he was “clean”. Fortunately, it was found with the metal detector wand and he was kicked off the grounds and reported to his chief. I don’t know WTF he was thinking. Sadly, every couple of years an officer dies during this kind of training because someone didn’t do their job.

[pkbites]

@MikeF

When problems do occur during this type of training it is almost always due to someone bringing a real weapon onto the “set” after going to lunch or similar.

Yep.

On those types of trainings everyone gets searched including the instructors. Check, check, double check. If you leave to use the restroom you get searched coming back In. No firearms, no mags except the training mags, no knives, OC, batons, Tasers. Nothing.

We use both Airsoft and those cotton ball rounds that leaves a dye where they strike.