MovieChat Forums > Alec Baldwin Discussion > Old Westerns where cowboy fires pistol w...

Old Westerns where cowboy fires pistol with hammer only


I know I've seen old western movies where the cowboy stands there just firing multiple rounds by repeatedly releasing the hammer of the gun, and like Baldwin, never pulling the trigger.

Am I wrong? I'm not at all educated in guns and have never shot more than a BB gun my entire life.

I'm of the belief that Baldwin's gun certainly could have fired when he released the cocked hammer. Thus he still bears some responsibility, even though he may not have actually pulled the trigger.

I do believe it's nothing more than a case of "involuntary manslaughter", but there are three areas of neglect here:

1 - Total lack of training related to his understanding of the gun he was handling.

2 - Baldwin bears some responsibility for not checking the gun for live ammo first.

3 - The armorer is obviously in some trouble for all of the above.

reply

It's not possible to release the hammer of a revolver without pulling the trigger. The old revolvers like you see in westerns are what is called "single-action", which means you must first cock the hammer with your thumb, then pull the trigger. Either that or hold the trigger depressed and "fan" the hammer by brushing your other hand across it. In either case, the trigger must be pulled. An exception would be if the gun was defective. I had a very old Harrington and Richardson .32 revolver that was so worn out that if the hammer was cocked, it would sometimes release on its own without the trigger being touched. It wasn't worth the money to have it fixed by a gunsmith, so I blocked the cylinder so it could no longer be loaded and now it's a paperweight. But a defective gun like that is rare.

reply

I believe those old movies where you see the hero slapping the hammer over and over again to get the bullets out... he's pulling the trigger between each slap. Apparently that's the only way to get those six-guns to fire bullets in quick succession.

One of the legal issues with the movie is that this particular gun reportedly misfired before, and this potentially dangerous issue with the gun was reported to the producers and the armorer, and nothing was done. So it's possible a malfunctioning gun simply misfired at a moment when some idiot had left a live bullet it in, maybe Baldwin didn't even pull the trigger. But that possibility won't get him off the legal hook he's wriggling on, even if he didn't pull the trigger he still violated industry safety standards by pointing it at unshielded people, and he was part of the production team that did diddly-squat about the malfunctioning prop gun.

reply

In those instances you need to hold the trigger which prevents the hammer from locking then you can continually pull back on the hammer to fire rapidly. You do have to have the trigger held unless the gun is very defective.

reply

I have no idea if the hammer-slapping thing works in real life, works on some models of gun only, or it's something that actors do because it looks dramatic.

Well, either way, Baldwin is fucked legally.

reply

I guess you're talking about fanning? What you're missing out though is that it needs that initial single trigger press held down to get the trigger in a position to disengage the sear when the hammer is cocked. So yeah, if was was trying to decock it, he would have been pulling on the trigger.

So no, a revolver won't go off on it's own without a trigger pull. If there was some freak mechanical failure of the hammer, the half cock position or safety notch should catch it to prevent a discharge.

So we can be sure of two things. The pistol was cocked and the trigger was pulled. It's awfully coincidental that Alec is claiming a freak mechanical failure when he just happens to be aiming at a person...

reply

If you hold the trigger and fire by cocking and releasing the hammer, it’s called slip-hammering.

reply

It is possible the revolver was really worn down or tampered with for a certain action. But he probably just had his finger depressing the trigger the entire time and didn't notice or he is lying because he is a psychopath.

reply

IMHO, he's at the very least incompetent.

It would take all of about five minutes to determine if the gun was faulty.

reply

Or he has a temper problem and shot the gun because of it under the assumption it was not loaded.

reply

Can Baldwin be blamed for his ignorance? No. The world is full of ignorant people

Those who employ him can though. He has a track record of ignorance going back decades so those who enable him are just as guilty.

If he were given the death penalty the world be a better place. But I think 20 years in prison would be a good place to start.

reply

re: I think 20 years in prison would be a good place to start

Unfortunately, conviction of involuntary manslaughter is only punishable "up to 18 months in prison and up to $5,000 in fines." But it's a felony conviction that could limit his future acting opportunities.

reply

Well hopefully he’ll spend the remainder of his life a disgrace. But unlikely if the Democrat media can repair his image. It’ll be spots on SNL, the view, and sit downs with Democrat campaign managers who now host Good Morning America.

reply

Factor in negligence and it'll be harsher than that. Involuntary manslaughter implies an unavoidable accident. If Baldwin had simply followed existing rules and protocols, she would still be alive.

reply

He also should never have had the barrel of the gun pointing at anyone.

reply