• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

45 Colt: Evaluating question about fatal round in “Rust” movie shooting

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
 
I've read that the brass used in the live round was made by Starline, which got me to thinking what if Starline (or other brass manufactures) made limited runs of movie prop cartridge cases that had no flash hole and a case head stamped with the caliper and the word DUMMY or PROP, i.e. 45 Cal Prop.
No flash hole, no bang, no more accidental shootings.
 
I would have to offer that once any Live Guns , and Live Ammo were allowed to be brought on the "Set" area , safety rules had been violated to the point of no return . If the Armorer was aware of any live ammo on the set , it IS their job , and responsibility to confiscate all Live Ammo and control it's disposition .

In using a Gun capable of having a live round inserted and fired should also be covered under safety protocols , and from a purely safety stand-point , never be allowed on the Set . Eliminate the potential for a fatality , before it has a chance to occur .

I cannot find any reasonable explanation for having any Live Ammo , and a Gun capable of firing Live Ammo on the Set proximity . For any reason . These safety controls , and Rules fall to the Armorer to enforce . It is part of the Job Description . It is a CLOSED and supposedly controlled environment , and one person is the COP ! The Armorer does in fact bear some responsibility for this mis-hap . As a R.S.O ; I can empathize , but that doesn't lessen the burden of following ALL the rules .
 
I would think that if the cartridge had any powder, 1/2 full, a BB or such would probably not really rattle inside. So not a really good test, in my opinion.
As for Alex Baldwin, the actor, very staunch anti-gun person and also has plenty of money, so he probably will never be charged with any crime. Yet any common citizen accidently or otherwise do the same , with a gun, and killed someone, they would have been arrested within hours, if not minutes. Plus law suits would be filed for the death of the family member, accidental or not.
Typical VIP treatment and they, like most politicians get away with crimes, even murder.


I



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
t
 
There are reasons why a young inexperienced armorer was hired by the production company, I'm sure it will be explained in court, civil because no criminal charges have happened.
 
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”.
By definition a "dummy round" cannot have a live primer. Ergo your first order of business is to inspect the primer/primer pocket. "..intact primer 'closeup' dummy rounds..." are not dummy rounds, they are either blanks or live rounds.
 
Last edited:
I've read that the brass used in the live round was made by Starline, which got me to thinking what if Starline (or other brass manufactures) made limited runs of movie prop cartridge cases that had no flash hole and a case head stamped with the caliper and the word DUMMY or PROP, i.e. 45 Cal Prop.
No flash hole, no bang, no more accidental shootings.
Thanks. That's actually the first line of my article, complete with a photoshopped image.
 
By definition a "dummy round" cannot have a live primer. Ergo your first order of business is to inspect the primer/primer pocket. "..intact primer 'closeup' dummy rounds..." are not dummy rounds, they are either blanks or live rounds.
Joe Swanson's Motion Picture Blanks (who was quoted as supplying dummies) makes identical
You can’t really tell the difference unless you shake it dummies. I bet he doesn't anymore. Other shops make almost identical machined primer dummies. Neither the NM Dept of Safety nor the Santa FE Sherriff's office would answer what the primers looked like.

As I said, the armorer stated she only looked for holes or shook the dummies. This means her second "spin check" was meaningless "safety theater". So it all came down to when she loaded the gun. Five of the rounds had holes. So:

1. She didn't shake the fatal round (from a box delivered that morning).
2. She shook it and was convinced enough to load it.

My money is on #1. But to not rule out #2 would be irresponsible.

Who would be listening for a muffled rattle? Maybe some of the perforated dummies also had BBs and confused the issue by sounding similar. Maybe she assumed that dummy from the fly-by-night prop shop on this low-budget film was "wonky", just like the sticky dummy round she was replacing.

So, again, what might a "live ratter" sound like to a novice? I figure you could just tape the projectile in place, no need to crimp it.

This is the only potential link in the chain of events that we might answer at this point.
 
Some blanks can be just as deadly as live ammo if not used properly. Back in 1984, an actor Jon Erik Hexum shot himself in the head with a revolver loaded with blank cartridges and died as a result of this. He was the boy-toy of model actress Jennifer O'Neal who went on a campaign of trying to have handguns banned after this incident. Her anti-gun push ended when she "accidently" shot herself with an "unlicensed/unregistered" handgun.
 
Some inaccuracies in the above post.

- O’Neill shot herself in 1982, two years before Hexum’s death.

- While O’Neill and Hexum were both working on the same TV series when the latter shot himself, I found no evidence they were ever romantically involved. Hexum did have a very public girlfriend at the time if his death.

- I could find no reports of O’Neill currently supporting gun control, although she does advocate for pro-life causes.

Disclaimer: I am no fan of O’Neill’s, but I am a fan of accuracy.




.
 
Bad thing is we will never know the truth and they will continue to employ libtard gun haters to do their prop gun stuff that dont have a clue about real gun safety
Agree with Dusty with regard to never knowing the truth in the back story.

This contributes nothing to the OP's question but my WV upbringing causes me to just reduce confusion by reducing answers to such questions to the bare basics as follows: who cocked the single action revolver; who aimed the revolver; who was in control of the firearm when it discharged. All the rest of the story is background noise that, along with good attorneys, money and know nothing expert witnesses will result in acquittal on all criminal charges for all involved.

Civil charges will most likely go a different way but the main player has deep pockets and no conscience to haunt him in the future.
 
I’m an engineer and new to this forum. My career was spent designing, building, and maintaining ships and nuclear submarines for the U. S. Navy. Whenever an accident or unintended event occurred, we went through a process to capture all relevant information from the personnel directly involved, gathered on scene evidence, and took all control of any suspect tools and/or equipment. Usually, involved personnel were immediately drug tested if a person was injured. Everyone involved wrote a statement of what they did or witnessed as soon as possible after the accident, and before those involved had the opportunity to discuss events with anyone else. When people start discussing what happened, history often gets revised, whether intentionally or not.

With all the information collected, a panel of knowledgeable people analyzed all the evidence and witness statements to determine the true root cause of the accident/unintended event. This usual came down to one of two causes – failure to follow procedure, or bad/no procedure to follow.

In the case of the movie set accident, I suspect there was no effective effort to collect evidence, take written statements, and control the accident scene until the local law enforcement team arrived. While the law enforcement team most likely have a process to perform most of the activities described above, those involved probably talked about what happened before law enforcement arrived and possibly corrupted their recollections of what did and didn’t happen, before, during and after the shooting.

When the investigation is finally completed, I suspect the root cause will be the failure to treat all firearms as loaded with live rounds, and to never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don’t intend to shoot. That is the procedure that was violated in this accident. Any organization that fails to follow that procedure is guilty of contributing to the death or injury of persons harmed. Simply said the root cause is pointing a gun at someone.
 
Some inaccuracies in the above post.

- O’Neill shot herself in 1982, two years before Hexum’s death.

- While O’Neill and Hexum were both working on the same TV series when the latter shot himself, I found no evidence they were ever romantically involved. Hexum did have a very public girlfriend at the time if his death.

- I could find no reports of O’Neill currently supporting gun control, although she does advocate for pro-life causes.

Disclaimer: I am no fan of O’Neill’s, but I am a fan of accuracy.




.
Holy Molly....Jennifer O'Neil was married 9....yes 9 times to 8 different men. She married one, divorced him then re-married him. Do you suppose she was that bad a judge of male character or just lusted for something different 8 times? Wow!!
 
Rules are just made to be broken it seems, either intentionally or unintentionally. That's human nature and human fallibility. IMO using sound cues to determine vital info is suspect and way to prone to individual interpretation. Visual cues, like holes in the brass case are not, but that itself may not have prevented the accident.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,511
Messages
2,197,691
Members
78,961
Latest member
Nicklm
Back
Top