Posted on 12/04/2021 3:46:00 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Thank you. God only knows what this gun gas been through if cast and crew take it out for plinking and who knows what. None of them own the gun, so there’s no real incentive not to abuse it. Probably been fanned, dropped....
Concurring bump...if he had cocked it properly the hammer wouldn't have fallen when he released it.
I’m sure it will be gone over “with a fine-tooth comb”, by multiple qualified persons. In the meantime, I guess we will continue to be inundated by opinions from people who have never even seen the firearm, declaring with absolute certainty Baldwin’s guilt or innocence. I am in no way making excuses for the man - I consider him a detestable human being (but I find self-proclaimed judges and ‘experts’ nearly as detestable as Baldwin, at least on days when I’m more short-tempered and cranky than usual ;>)...
You should thank me for not offering any such opinion. :)
Folks who know a lot more about the design than do I, seem to be saying that certain parts might be subject to wear or breakage. (I actually owned a Colt SAA, many years ago, but I'm definitely no expert.) Being a 'clone' AND a rental gun, who knows what condition it was in, on the day in question...
Thank you! (I was not criticizing you personally, and apologize if it came across that way! ;>)
I couldn’t tell one way or the other. In any case, it’s not a problem. :)
I’ll say this about dropping a SAA or its propensity to wear from use. They’re built like tanks. I think you could drop it a thousand times and not harm the internals. I also think it would take a lot of use and abuse before wear became a problem. Some originals from the 1870s are still in good operating condition according to what I have read about them.
Quite a few years ago, a friend had a Ruger Blackhawk in .357 Mag. I couldn’t miss with it. On the strength of that, I bought a used one. What a piece of crap. It wasn’t dangerous. that I knew of, but it was a big disappointment in the accuracy department.
Doesn’t prevent an idiot from pulling the hammer back and letting it go….I didn’t pull the trigger. Sorry excuse for a human being
Obviously never had a cap gun
Not only that, if he pointed it at the cinematographer, it was probably captured on video, even if the camera he pointed at the time wasn’t rolling.
“Asshat doesn’t understand guns”
Probably never felt the need to even traon to profeciency, even though he’s used them in film.
Felons in Hollywood shouldn’t be alliwed handle weapons. Even in the movies.
Research origin of “go off half-cocked”.
Applies here.
True words
“ I’ll take “Liar” for $100, Alec.”
It’s the Daily Double !
Not that I like the guy but just like i would tell my own kid, he needs now to shut up lest he talk himself into jail!
You are wrong. I own a real 1865 colt not a modern replica and if you pull the hammer back to half sick and don’t sear that hammer on the sear and let go it absolutely will discharge the round under the hammer. You also don’t even need to pull the hammer back you can also the hammer from behind and set a round off just as easy. This is the origin of the expression going off half cocked, because pre 1870 revolver can and will go off half cock.
Here is video proof again you are wrong.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=155&v=ldHPNnsp-cs&feature=youtu.be
SAA revolvers are patented 1871. Your 1865 is not a SAA.
I tried to get my SAA to fall to the fully lowered position several times. Once it’s past the first click (safety position) the trigger won’t pull back. After it is past the second click (half cock position) the trigger still won’t pull back. Letting go of the hammer in either case the hammer will only fall to the safety position in the first instance and to the half cock position in the second instance.
Only if you pull the hammer back to the full cock position, while pulling back the trigger, will the trigger pull back and the hammer will fall all the way to the fully lowered position.
You are totally full of shit.
That video is about hitting the hammer while in the fully lowered position not about pulling the hammer back and letting go of it before it’s locked in the full cock position.
I can’t believe you were dumb enough to use that as your “proof.” It’s entirely non-sequitur.
Did Baldwin rotate the cylinder so the hammer was sure to strike the live bullet?
Never looked to see if the chamber was full, aimed gun at another person, cocked the gun, his fault bye bye
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.