Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

793

(post is archived)

[–] • 4 pts

The “expert” is retarded. Fuck Alec Baldwin but Old school revolvers didn’t have transfer bars and it is 100%possible to fire a round by resetting the hammer too hard. Accidental discharges happened all the time by people who didn’t put back the hammer gently enough, or even from the hammer just resting on a live round while in a holster. Modern guns w transfer bars fixed that.

[–] • 1 pt

Modern builds of single action revolvers all have a transfer bar. Even if it is an old design. Ruger even sells modification kits for their Blackhawk and Bearcat lines if you have one built in the 70’s or later to install a transfer bar.

[–] • 0 pt

But you have to, ahem, pull the trigger to reset the hammer.

[–] • 0 pt

Exactly. When decocking any hammer fired revolver or pistol, you point the firearm in a safe direction FIRST. Why? Because with most older firearms, you have to pull the trigger to do it!

Yeah, newer revolvers have transfer bars to prevent discharge if the operator accidently releases the hammer too fast when decocking, and some newer pistols have decocker levers (so you can decock without manipulating the hammer at all), but the rule is still the same.

That's why I am not a fan of Glocks and most similar types of pistols, because there is no way to "decock" the striker with a round chambered. Walther P99 is an exception, and a few others from Canick and Taurus.

[–] • 0 pt

Sig p226 for full size or p229 for the mid size has a really nice decocker on the hammer. Pricy gun at around $770 certified by Sig used last time I saw a good deal.

Sig sp2022 has a decocker too. It's under $500 and kinda looks like a p229 but with a polymer frame. These are really perfect guns.

[–] • 0 pt

Yeah that’s true if it’s all the way cocked. But if you just pull it back a little bit and then let go of it the spring will push it right into the round with some force

[–] • 3 pts

He’s a piece of shit.

[–] • 2 pts

The Hollywood "expert" says:

>It’s it’s very reliable device that shoots when you press the trigger, and it doesn’t shoot when you don’t press the trigger.”

[–] • 2 pts

However, in this case, Wolf said that the gun in question, widely reported as being an F.LL1 Pietta Long Colt 45 Revolver, is easily discharged and has a very sensitive trigger action. For that reason, he said he believes that Baldwin did in fact fire the gun by pulling the trigger, but may have done so by mistake.

Which is why there are several rules you follow when handling a firearm, like not pointing it at someone unless you intend on shooting them.

[–] • 0 pt

Period accuracy could change some of those rules, though that's a pretty old one. For example a WWII movie should have weaker trigger discipline than one based on events today. You can get a feel for it by watching training videos from the period. You also need to tune it to whether the character is German, Japanese, Tarzan, or Al Capone.

[–] • 0 pt

Obviously you're going to point guns at people and pull triggers for movie shots. In this case, it wasn't even an actor and a scene wasn't being filmed.

[–] • 1 pt

He cocked it and pulled the trigger. It was premeditated murder. There are accessories after the fact. The question is whether there were accessories/co-conspirators.

[–] • 1 pt

I totally trust journalists.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Do you think his portrayal as the victim will win him a Grammy?

[–] • 3 pts

Lol, no. Jussie has a lock on Best Male Victim. He scores bonus in the Diversity column.

[–] • 1 pt

I wonder if he was trying to do the hammer cock threat and the hammer slipped. It's the only way that happens without pulling the trigger.

[–] • 2 pts

Most single actions have a safety feature that prevents firing pin from resting against the primer unless the hammer has been locked back AND the trigger is pressed. For instance, if the hammer lock failed, but I did not press the trigger, the hammer would slam forward but it would not hit the primer. Pressing the trigger engages a transfer bar that allows the energy from the hammer to be deliver to the primer. Without the trigger press, no bang.

[–] • 1 pt

Yeah, that's how my CZ and HK pistols are, but what about antiques like a Colt single action army?

[–] • 0 pt

Beside the point, as they are not using antiques on set, but rather replicas which have modern safety features like I mentioned.

[–] • 0 pt

According to Colt SAA wiki;

>Starting in 1999, Colt began manufacturing a version of the Single Action Army revolver with a modern transfer bar safety, allowing it to be carried with the hammer resting on a loaded chamber.

So, it is plausible.

[–] • 2 pts

The likely scenario if he indeed didn't press the trigger.

I don;t like the guy, but I also don't think he went to work thinking he wanted to hurt anyone. Why the heck was live ammo on this set anyway?

[–] • 1 pt

I am no expert and I pretty sure a Trigger can't pull itself

[–] • 0 pt

The hammer can be released without the trigger being pulled.

[–] • 1 pt

Yeah, it seems like a man who makes a living with a gun in his hand would know better.

[–] • 1 pt

I have many weapons,I've never "pressed" the trigger,it is a pull that fires the weapon,everyone knows this.

[–] • 2 pts

Semantics. Not worth arguing over. Point being, it was no accident. He performed a hit for HRC by killing the spouse of the lawyer who failed to defend an HRC team member.

[–] • 0 pt

Correct,sorry for being anal,I'll just bet this joo fuck squirts out of any type of responsibility/accountability and smirks at justice.

[–] • 0 pt

You squeeze the trigger not pull everyone knows that