Let's suppose that you are an executive producer, of a movie. Let's suppose that it is a western, where they will use lots of revolvers.
Now, I'll admit, I've been in the bourbon, but it seems to me that if you're rehearsing with a revolver, it makes sense to remove the cylinder. A revolver without a cylinder is simply a paper weight. It still works like a revolver. With the base pin installed, it can be cocked and fired, but the only way that an actor can hurt someone is if you smack them with the barrel.
So, the question is: Why did I have to think of this?
I am available to be the safety guru on movie sets. For the proper amount of recompense.
I don't know which older revolvers that would work on, but it would still require an effective armorer to manipulate the firearms and keep track of the pieces. It looks like this entire incident could have been prevented by an effective armorer on set. It doesn't take too much skill to be able to look at a revolver (cartridge or cap) and see if it is "Cold" (No ammunition of any kind). If you see "Brass", it ain't "Cold", so something is wrong.
As a hypothesis, someone in authority bullied the young "armorer" to surrender firearms to be used in live fire training/experience and distracted that armorer enough that she didn't clear and check the firearms before they were used in a "rehearsal".
Damn! Baldwin used his in a "yank-yank" (quick draw and snap shot) to get a "hole-in-one". Good shootin' for a "Hollywood cowboy". And he got the woman who had been griefing him about set safety.
Paying strict attention to the rules that are currently in place would have been as effective.
Post a Comment