If you reload 45 Colt, here is an opportunity to add a hard fact or two to the discussion, although it probably is just a theory that needs debunking.
BLUF: What if the live round wound up in the gun because it had a metal “rattle” inside it—just like the closeup dummy rounds they were (inappropriately) using for an action shot? The test would be to shake-check a "live rattler", then (if it still rattled enough to be mistaken) a shot to test how a BB mixed in the propellant would perform.
LONG VERSION: I’m a retired 34-year Army/USAF Helicopter/jet pilot and Chief of Safety. I’m writing an article about the Rust movie shooting from a safety perspective (because I haven’t read one). Mishap investigations are almost the inverse of the criminal/civil legal perspective. Instead of focusing on what individual people did in the past, they seek to fix things in the future (hardware, regulations, training, etc.).
The latest lawsuit filing FINALLY answered my big question: “What did the primers look like?” The answer was that it didn't matter. The armorer didn’t pay attention, relying only on looking for holes in the side or shaking to check for a #2 or BB shot. This was because the production decided to use intact primer “closeup” dummy rounds for an action scene. This violated an unwritten rule. Only the fatal round (which came from a newly arrived box) didn’t have a hole, so it was (according to the armorer) a “rattler”.
Modern propellant would fill only half of a 45 (long) Colt case. What if somehow a metal object (i.e., a #2 or BB shot intended for a dummy) wound up in a case? Would it still rattle enough to fool someone? What if you shook it in a certain way? They wouldn’t be listening closely for an authentic rattle, just that it rattled. Maybe it was in a noisy environment and it felt real.
I’m highly skeptical of the hypothesis. But given how easy it would be to test, it is worth the effort to eliminate.
If validated, the next question is how would a projectile that could be anywhere from behind the bullet to behind the powder perform? I am thinking that spacing three or more #2 or BB shot in a light paper sleeve and then a penetration test (a dozen layers of cardboard?).
This might “crack” the case, so to speak (if it is corroborated with unexamined evidence). Or at least help avoid that scenario in the future. I really don't like the idea of changing anyone's fate, but if it means exonerating the armorer, then that would be justice.
If anyone has any more specific ideas, I’m all ears.
Regarding all the other speculations, particularly the failings of that actor...what's his name again? That has already been beaten into sub-atomic dead-horse particles.
Thanks
BLUF: What if the live round wound up in the gun because it had a metal “rattle” inside it—just like the closeup dummy rounds they were (inappropriately) using for an action shot? The test would be to shake-check a "live rattler", then (if it still rattled enough to be mistaken) a shot to test how a BB mixed in the propellant would perform.
LONG VERSION: I’m a retired 34-year Army/USAF Helicopter/jet pilot and Chief of Safety. I’m writing an article about the Rust movie shooting from a safety perspective (because I haven’t read one). Mishap investigations are almost the inverse of the criminal/civil legal perspective. Instead of focusing on what individual people did in the past, they seek to fix things in the future (hardware, regulations, training, etc.).
The latest lawsuit filing FINALLY answered my big question: “What did the primers look like?” The answer was that it didn't matter. The armorer didn’t pay attention, relying only on looking for holes in the side or shaking to check for a #2 or BB shot. This was because the production decided to use intact primer “closeup” dummy rounds for an action scene. This violated an unwritten rule. Only the fatal round (which came from a newly arrived box) didn’t have a hole, so it was (according to the armorer) a “rattler”.
Modern propellant would fill only half of a 45 (long) Colt case. What if somehow a metal object (i.e., a #2 or BB shot intended for a dummy) wound up in a case? Would it still rattle enough to fool someone? What if you shook it in a certain way? They wouldn’t be listening closely for an authentic rattle, just that it rattled. Maybe it was in a noisy environment and it felt real.
I’m highly skeptical of the hypothesis. But given how easy it would be to test, it is worth the effort to eliminate.
If validated, the next question is how would a projectile that could be anywhere from behind the bullet to behind the powder perform? I am thinking that spacing three or more #2 or BB shot in a light paper sleeve and then a penetration test (a dozen layers of cardboard?).
This might “crack” the case, so to speak (if it is corroborated with unexamined evidence). Or at least help avoid that scenario in the future. I really don't like the idea of changing anyone's fate, but if it means exonerating the armorer, then that would be justice.
If anyone has any more specific ideas, I’m all ears.
Regarding all the other speculations, particularly the failings of that actor...what's his name again? That has already been beaten into sub-atomic dead-horse particles.
Thanks
