TexasCHLforum.com

Chemist45 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:29 pm From the Vanity Fair article:

"You can pull the hammer back without actually pulling the trigger and without actually locking it," she explained. "So you pull it back partway, it doesn't lock, and then if you let it go, the firing pin can hit the primer of the bullet."

This is true on many revolvers. The combination of spring strength and hammer weight can be enough to set of a primer even when the hammer is not fully cocked. Remember: Guns are made to fire ammunition.
But it doesn't matter.

Who was responsible for making sure the gun was unloaded?
Alec Baldwin.
Who pointed the gun at a living human being?
Alec Baldwin.
Who cocked the hammer (Fully or not.)?
Alec Baldwin.

Who is responsible for the death of Halyna Hutchins?
Alec Baldwin.

I made a comment on a YT video on this subject basically saying what you're saying. Someone else replied that actors and actresses don't check the guns because it's too dangerous for them to do so and they don't know how to do it. He stated that he worked on many movie sets and only the armorer is allowed to check the firearms. So, I needled the guy a bit and asked him if those actors and actresses really are that stupid, and surprisingly enough, he say "yes", they are that dumb. Now, do I still think that every individual who handles a firearm is responsible for the condition and safety of that firearm? Yes, I do. But I find it telling that he, who works around those actors and actresses, believes most of them cannot be trusted to do a simple task that most flyover country kids learn how to do, and yet we are all supposed to bow and scrape when these Hollyweird types make a proclamation about life. The whole thing is simply surreal, and highly annoying.

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:18 am

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 1:49 am

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:52 pm

Keith B wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:25 pm

oohrah wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:17 pm
My Piettas are Cap & Ball, but I also have conversion cylinders for them that take 45LC cartridges. Those cylinders replace the C&B cylinders and they have the firing pins on each cylinder. There is no transfer bar system. There is an "in-between" notch to rest the hammer for safety. Other wise the hammer strikes the firing pin directly. I have n o idea what type Baldwin was using, but it wasn't C&B.

Supposedly it was an 1873 .45 Long Colt replica. If that’s the case, then it should have a transfer bar safety.

According to some reports I’ve seen he claims he cocked the hammer, and it dropped and the gun fired. My guess is he had the trigger depressed enough to disengage the transfer bar, cocked the hammer and when he let the hammer go it fired. This would be a proper function of the gun since you can ‘fan’ an 1873 hammer as long as the trigger is pulled.

I suspect you are correct and most likely this is what the experts will all say in court and what the FBI gun tests will show.

If so, he had that trigger back pretty far, if the mechanism in the Pietta works like my Ruger did. If you quickly pressed the trigger but let go of it before it got all the way back, even though the hammer fell, so did the transfer bar, so no BANG!

I am having a problem figuring out how any of that makes him innocent or a poor victim. He really thinks his interview makes him less culpable? Rule number one. Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. If any one of us killed someone in the same circumstances, we would have been arrested by now. Excuses like his are not going to make what he did excusable. It seems wealthy Democrats work under different laws than the rest of us.

I certainly agree with you. My only angle on this is to point out that his excuses of what happened with the revolver in his hand show him to be, at best, spinning what actually occurred and more likely just flat-out lying. Additionally, there are those who want to believe his prevarications, but if this ends up in court, anyone who has a solid knowledge of the firearm in question will be able to take apart the narrative he's trying to craft.

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 6:52 pm

Keith B wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 5:25 pm

oohrah wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:17 pm
My Piettas are Cap & Ball, but I also have conversion cylinders for them that take 45LC cartridges. Those cylinders replace the C&B cylinders and they have the firing pins on each cylinder. There is no transfer bar system. There is an "in-between" notch to rest the hammer for safety. Other wise the hammer strikes the firing pin directly. I have n o idea what type Baldwin was using, but it wasn't C&B.

Supposedly it was an 1873 .45 Long Colt replica. If that’s the case, then it should have a transfer bar safety.

According to some reports I’ve seen he claims he cocked the hammer, and it dropped and the gun fired. My guess is he had the trigger depressed enough to disengage the transfer bar, cocked the hammer and when he let the hammer go it fired. This would be a proper function of the gun since you can ‘fan’ an 1873 hammer as long as the trigger is pulled.

I suspect you are correct and most likely this is what the experts will all say in court and what the FBI gun tests will show.

If so, he had that trigger back pretty far, if the mechanism in the Pietta works like my Ruger did. If you quickly pressed the trigger but let go of it before it got all the way back, even though the hammer fell, so did the transfer bar, so no BANG!

Keith B wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:41 pm

oohrah wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:17 pm I have several Pietta SA revolver replicas. It is quite possible that he merely pulled back the hammer and then let it go or it slipped accidentally, without getting fully cocked. Those triggers are pretty light also. I believe the latter, an accidental slip of the hammer, so Baldwin is quite possibly truthful about that.

That still doesn't exonerate him from violating the other rules, and he should be held liable as much as the armorer.

With a transfer bar safety system, as long as it is functioning as designed, a hammer dropping without the trigger depressed should not result in the hammer being able to strike the firing pin.

I formerly owned a Ruger Vaquero with the transfer bar system. The hammer had to be cocked back fully, and then the trigger pulled fully to the rear to not only release the hammer, but also to push the transfer bar up where the hammer could come forward to strike it, and transfer that strike into the firing pin. I played around with it, unloaded of course, and if the trigger wasn't all the way back, the hammer would release, but the transfer bar would drop down, preventing the firing pin from being struck...which was the entire point of the system.

Obviously, a VERY tragic incident. Sad for anyone to lose their life in such a manner.

That said, IMHO, this is the result of people who are anti-gun treating firearms like toys. They refuse to take firearms seriously, they bash on those who do, and since these antis have such attitudes about firearms, they don't take the time to learn the proper rules for firearms handling. Sheer negligence on the part of multiple people, including Alec Baldwin.