For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1878023
Possibly so, but any competent armourer could deactivate live rounds in a minute or so.

Using a bullet puller take the lead bullet out of the casing, pour the propellant into an ashtray and drop a lighted match onto it.

Place the casing into the weapon and fire it in a safe direction to safe the primer. Reassemble bullet and casing, now totally safe to have on the set.

It can be visually assured as the primer is obviously pricked.

Rob P
#1878024
There are very realistic dummy rounds which contain no propellant that can be used for close up shots of reloading if necessary. Any round, live or blank, which contain the necessary ingredients to cause an explosion in the weapon, including blanks, are inherently dangerous if not handled with respect. Having spent a considerable portion of my career using firearms of various types, as well as being a recreational shooter competing for teams, I have usually been impressed by the safety disciplines demonstrated in this country. (There have been rare exceptions when lapses were forcibly pointed out even if it caused resentment).

I was surprised that there was even a remote possibility that live rounds could be present on a film set using blank firing weapons because the recipe for confusion should be obvious. I have no idea if that was what actually happened, but it is worth pointing out that the incident was in the USA where regular, almost casual, exposure to weapons has led to a certain level of complacency by many people in a way which doesn’t tend to exist here.

My sympathy is with those involved, whatever the cause, because it will probably stay with them for life.

PW
#1878028
Propwash wrote:I was surprised that there was even a remote possibility that live rounds could be present on a film set


An inalienable right assured by the second amendment?

God bless America.

Rob P
Propwash, lobstaboy, Flyin'Dutch' and 1 others liked this
#1878032
My money is on it was a blank, and it was the wadding that did the damage. It appears to have been very close range and it was a .44. There's a heck of a lot of energy in there.

If they needed a down the barrel shot, it should have been done with the camera on a tripod, and crew clear.
#1878039
In my surface HM ships days, when refuelling at sea, a line had to be passed to the RFA in order to get a heavier one over. A blank was put in a .303 Enfield, a long pin was put into the barrel with a nylon line attached to it. They took cover on the other side while the pin and line was blasted to the refueller. Needless to say the dabtoe firing the gun didn’t hold it to his shoulder.
HMS Tiger was in drydock in Plymouth for a few days and there was an order to exercise the forward 6” guns. A non explosive shell had been left in one barrel, but during the process the gun went off, the shell went through several dockside factory walls. Strangely, no casualties.
So, dummy rounds can pack a punch !
#1878058
Sooty25 wrote:My money is on it was a blank, and it was the wadding that did the damage. It appears to have been very close range and it was a .44. There's a heck of a lot of energy in there.


It is reported that whatever projectile was ejected from the firearm killed one individual but had sufficient energy to both pass through the first individual’s chest, and seriously injure a second in the shoulder.

Wadding?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/alec-baldwin-fired-prop-gun-that-killed-crew-member-movie-set-authorities-2021-10-22/

I’d say you’ve lost your money!
#1878066
@A4 Pacific I guess you've never shot with a .44 then?

There would be no reason for live rounds to be on set, the bet is still on. No report yet on the projectile, but, wadding out of a .44 against soft tissue, it'll do more than sting.

My interpretation of a "cold gun" is an unloaded gun, not one containing blanks and should be handled in an open state.
#1878074
@A4 Pacific I guess you've never shot with a .44 then?


Then you’d be very wrong. I’ve also used a .50 cal semi automatic pistol. Is there some reason why either of those particular facts should be important to contributing to this discussion?? :roll:

I agree with some of the stuff you’ve said, and I’ll happily hold my hand up if I’m wrong about the wadding. I’ve just never heard of wadding alone delivering so much energy that it has passed through a chest and injured a second individual before. That’s all.

What’s your experience/knowledge of .44 blank wadding injuries? Because everything I’m reading currently suggests this firearm discharged a live round!
#1878086
A4 Pacific wrote:
@A4 Pacific I guess you've never shot with a .44 then?


Then you’d be very wrong. I’ve also used a .50 cal semi automatic pistol. Is there some reason why either of those particular facts should be important to contributing to this discussion?? :roll:

I agree with some of the stuff you’ve said, and I’ll happily hold my hand up if I’m wrong about the wadding. I’ve just never heard of wadding alone delivering so much energy that it has passed through a chest and injured a second individual before. That’s all.

What’s your experience/knowledge of .44 blank wadding injuries? Because everything I’m reading currently suggests this firearm discharged a live round!


I dare say there is a percentage of forumites that have shot little more than an air rifle at a fair ground. Your .50 experience aces my .44 Magnum and .45 black powder.

I'd be very surprised if live rounds got on set, even a bad armourer would know the difference. My theory on the blank comes from the possibility that the armourer was reloading her own blanks and using something with too much substance as a cap.

Could the unknown material launched by a full .44 load pass through soft tissue and into a second? Well, I certainly wouldn't stand in front of it!
A4 Pacific liked this
#1878100
I will make no pretense that my limited experience of target and vermin shooting with .22 air rifles and .22 live rounds on the range only makes me any kind of expert, but...

Just why is ANY kind of round needed on a film set? Surely bangs can be edited onto the sound track with little effort, and actors are trained to, well, act! So mimicking the act of handling and firing live weapons should be just another day at work. If there's a need for visible muzzle flash (is that the right term?) I should have thought that CGI had been quite capable of imposing that on a moving image for some years now.

G
#1878109
News report this morning said that crew used that gun for target practice during their down time with live bullets . :shock:

Also another report that the firearm expert on set , a young lady with a double/barrelled -oops :oops: - name and daughter of a well known arms expert and armourer allegedly admitted on social media a few days ago that she didn’t know what she was doing, :roll:
#1878112
Genghis the Engineer wrote:Just why is ANY kind of round needed on a film set?


Why does anyone need to concealed carry a handgun around a shopping mall?

It's a different world over there.

Rob P