From ABC:
What forensic testing reveals about revolver in on-set ‘Rust’ shooting
Accidental discharge testing determined that the firearm used in the shooting — a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt) caliber F.lli Pietta single-action revolver — could not have fired without the trigger being pulled, the FBI report shows.
With the hammer in the quarter- and half-cock positions, the gun “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger,” the report stated.
With the hammer fully cocked, the gun “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional,” the report stated.
With the hammer de-cocked on a loaded chamber, the gun was able to detonate a primer “without a pull of the trigger when the hammer was struck directly,” which is normal for this type of revolver, the report stated.
Okay, I’m now confused.
Quarter and half cock are supposed to be safe positions. The hammer is not supposed to fall from quarter or half cock when the trigger is pulled.
Hence why “going off half cocked” is a bad thing.
So did the gun drop the hammer from quarter cock and half cock when the trigger is pulled?
With the hammer down and striking the hammer causing a discharge tells me it is a live firing pin design. I’m flabbergasted that is made and imported into the US today. It’s certainly not a drop safe design which is why just about everyone has gone to transfer bar systems.
Yes, I absolutely know that under no circumstances should there have been live rounds in the gun or on the set. That was 100% the determining factor in this incident.
But ignoring that for a moment, what the media is reporting from the FBI makes me think that this gun was not a good gun to begin with.
A lot has changed in the firearms world since 1873, and a lot of internal design safties put in place since then are worthwhile improvements.
If this is a totally faithful reproduction of an 1874 Colt Single Action Army, I would be dubious of it.
I’ve never held a modern revolver since 1968, that will lower the hammer FROM ANY POSITION without pulling the trigger. EVERY revolver I’ve shopped has the transfer bar and you can’t make it fire with the hammer down, even if you smash it with a ballpeen hammer. The Fumblenuts Bunch of Idiots did good, till they started lieing. As usual.
I am not certain as i am just starting on my SAA journey, but I believe some current models are still “old style” and can fire if the hammer is struck hard enough while down on a live round. I don’t know if this particular gun is one of those … and making the assessment also means the media got the make & model right.
.
The amount of force required, however, would mean Baldwin would have been hitting on the hammer with, well, a hammer or something. Just flicking the hammer shouldn’t do it.
.
I don’t think the bottom line is changed at all, however.
“With the hammer fully cocked, the gun “could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional,” the report stated.”
Having spent a fair part of my career deciphering “key words and tricky phrases” I was immediately drawn to “…while the working internal components were intact and functional…” Why would the fibbies add in the intact and functional qualifiers? Were some the internal components not intact or functional and the fibbies replaced parts? In the old west it was not unknown for single action revolvers to be modified into “slip” guns by tying the trigger back. Soapy Smith for one was known to carry a slip gun, however, it didn’t help him much when someone put a 45-70 into him on the Skagway docks. But yeah, since 1968 imported pistols have had to have a safety device installed in order to meet the “sporting purposes” requirement for importation. Some manufacturers went with transfer bars some went with some kind of a manual safety.
Preparations are being made to declare Alex Baldwin more equal than others.
You mean “make it official, instead of common knowledge “, don’t you?