Calling forum gun experts. How does a dummy firearm kill?

[winjim]

Alan Parker had the right idea in 1976.

 

[DRM]

A lot easier and a better control to have an armourer, which is actually a registered trade, to do it.
when I have an electrician doing work at my house I don’t get the mega out to test. I pay a qualified person.
Also, you vastly overestimate the familiarity and expertise of the layperson with firearms.

I think you’ll find that that was my point, the armourer proves the weapon is in the required state in front of the actor, then and only then is the scene shot.

 

[dodgy]

I think you’ll find that that was my point, the armourer proves the weapon is in the required state in front of the actor, then and only then is the scene shot.

Apologies, poor comprehension on my part.

 

[MichaelW2]

View attachment 615401
Live or blank?

Old Westetn style guns dont have swing out cylinders, they rotate in place and you check each of the 6 chambers at the reloading gate making sure that you count each one

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Point of order. It was a pistol, not a gun.


This is a gun

 

[winjim]

Point of order. It was a pistol, not a gun.


This is a gun

View attachment 615431

That's a tank.

 

[Badger_Boom]

That's a tank.

That's not a tank; this is a tank.

 

[T4tomo]

That's a tank.

er its a battleship - get thyself to specsavers.....

 

[winjim]

er its a battleship - get thyself to specsavers.....

It's got a big gun on the front so it's obviously a tank.

 

[T4tomo]

It's got a big gun on the front so it's obviously a tank.

its in the farking sea!

 

[Profpointy]

er its a battleship - get thyself to specsavers.....

That's not a battleship, this is a battleship

 

[winjim]

I sort of feel the need to step outside the confines of the joke to point out that it's actually a Type 42 Destroyer.





Which is kind of the joke.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

I'd love to see the actors insisting on the armorer checking on some of the recent examples before the scene was shot.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Minor point but the actor can;t always be given the gun directly - and might not even have sight of it before he/she gets hold of it
Imagine a scene where actor A comes in - actor B pulls out a hidden gun and shoots at actor A who falls but grabs the gun and shoots B
at which point actor c (the Hero) bursts through the door wrestles the gun from whoever and shoots the baddy

Now - at the start only ACtor A has the gun - and no-one can see it
Actor C has no sight of the gun and it is not in his control until he.she picks it up and immediatly pulls the trigger - at which point 2 other people have had control of it out of his sight

So they cannot do a safety check before pulling the trigger.

The solution is for all 3 to see the armourer check the weapon
after which the armourer is always positioned to see the gun - or have total sight of its position when it is hidden

and, of course, no live rounds allowed on set at any time and all weapons used in the film are kept secure and not used for entertainment at other times

not excessively difficult - but the American attitude to guns is way too casual - they probably treat their socks with more care than the guns - they seem to just consider them the same as toys at times

 

[Arrowfoot]

The huge Twitter thread up there ^^^ y an actual armourer clearly states there were more than adequate controls. It was the people who let it down.

So no need to improve gun safety? What happens when people fail with the supposed adequate controls?