Rust
- Thread starter Peter C.
- Start date
This is very sad but it proves the point that industry practices are the problem. Likewise, any safety practice not followed is a problem but here in particular is that industry practices have supplanted gun safety practices which hold 1 sacrosanct commandment above all others, never point a gun at anyone. You can take the whole body of industry practices that together were created specifically because they can't abide by that 1 commandment. If you use real props that don't accept real cartridges, then you can do what you want, but the insistence on pointing a real gun at a person cost Halyna Hutchins her life and there is no denying it. If that one single commandment had been followed, in spite of all of the other criminal recklessness displayed, she would still be alive.
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
holy ****ing ****. look at all those commingled live and dummy rounds. these are worse odds than playing russian roulette.
thanks for putting the timestamps, that made it quick to have a look. absolutely awful practices. both the armorers and the producers are at fault
why do they have any live ammunition? because it's cheaper? or it will later be converted to dummy ammo?
Peter C.
Veteran
@35:00 It describes the event in more detail. Both the Armorer and Halls noticed a round in the gun that didn't match the other dummy rounds.
Last edited:
Why wouldn't they? The guns are real. Real guns are designed to fire real ammunition and these were no exception. They have other purposes than to be used in movies. Range rentals, competitive shooting, sport shooting. cowboy action shooting. target shooting, plinking, practice, varmint control. These are all activities that have existed since the 19th century. The guns of an armorer have a life other than movie making, which is a role no real gun should be used in. You can modify a gun to not fire live rounds. Then you can use it in a film production and it still looks authentic, but someone wanted not to give up the utility and value of a real firearm.
Cowboy action shooting - Wikipedia
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Why would you bring live ammunition to a film set
What if your script called for filming a miss hit, a bullet that strikes a liquor bottle in a saloon shootout could be filmed separately and potentially safely, a bullet penetrating a window or watering trough. I don't know, the armorer may be using logic of the film maker, just different tools. For example, you bring extras, lenses, filters, mics, parts, extra memory cards that in all probability you won't use, but you bring them because you have them in case you need them unanticipated, or because you don't want them to get separated from your other supplies. That would be a very bad reason knowing what we know about the set of Rust but before there was the accident, there was the belief they could control safety on set. It got a away from them. Has anyone ever reached into your camera bag to borrow a screwdriver or a AA battery? The armorer has bullets sorted on a table, turns her back or goes on break, a curiosity seeker handles a cartridge, puts it back in the wrong place, endless possibilities. I've seen people that keep all their ammunition randomly mixed in a bag. They reach in, pull something out, shoot it. I own acreage. I have had guests that drive their 4x4's where they shouldn't, get into a trouble spot, handle firearms dangerously around others. They are not aware of the dangers they are presenting and getting control of a situation like that especially if alcohol is involved is my nightmare.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I'm trying to find standards or regulations somewhere. Closest I found is this in the LA Times:
Wait, here we go. Again from LA Times:
Safety bulletin #1: ""LIVE AMMUNITION" IS NEVER TO BE USED NOR BROUGHT ONTO ANY STUDIO
LOT OR STAGE."
In safety bulletin #2 it states that "On controlled second units, there may be a very rare occasion when "LIVE
AMMUNITION" must be used to obtain an effect."
https://www.csatf.org/production-affairs-safety/safety-bulletins/
Bottom line: they absolutely should not have had any live ammunition on the set of Rust
Run&Gun
Veteran
So, weasely lawyer logic reads #1 as they were not on a Studio Lot or Stage. Notice it does not use the more generic term “set”, which can be considered anywhere you are shooting. It specifically says “Studio Lot or Stage”, again, which reads as very specific locations.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
that's true but it probably only helps them a little. this isn't a legally binding document to begin with, so the details may not matter as much as in a contract. I think the bigger question is simply what are the well-established and well-known industry protocols. The rest of the document kind of seems like they're referring more generally to film sets. You have the LA Times stating without bothering to make a specific citation that live ammunition isn't allowed on set. It's pretty clear that they were operating with a higher level of risk than is commonly taken.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
All of those are done regularly without the use of live ammunition, via special FX.
I have never seen live ammo on set in three decades of being around guns on set.
INDUSTRY WIDE LABOR-MANAGEMENT SAFETY COMMITTEE GENERAL CODE OF SAFE PRACTICES FOR PRODUCTION said:
SAFETY BULLETIN #1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAFETY WITH FIREARMS AND USE OF "BLANK AMMUNITION" said:
SAFETY BULLETIN #2 SPECIAL USE OF "LIVE AMMUNITION said:
PRODUCTION-SAFETY-MANUAL-2013.pdf (vassar.edu)
Bulletin #1
Real guns can be pointed if absolutely necessary, with blank ammunition. This is a poorly conceived rule because live ammunition can be inadvertently mixed with blanks in guns that can fire both. Blanks can also kill.
Bulletin #2
Keep live ammunition capable firearms separated from props.
Real guns are not to be used as props.
This is a somewhat better rule because it implies a 3rd type of firearm that fires blanks but not live ammunition while permitting real guns for an extremely limited special use case for effects, away from the set, on a target range or special use area with restricted access.
Real guns are not to be used as props.
This is a somewhat better rule because it implies a 3rd type of firearm that fires blanks but not live ammunition while permitting real guns for an extremely limited special use case for effects, away from the set, on a target range or special use area with restricted access.
Code of Safe Practices
No live ammunition on set. The difficulty here is that ammunition is easily confused, inadvertently mixed despite the markings intended to distinguish dummy rounds from live rounds. Guns are magnets for bullets. This is inescapable and it happened on the set of Rust. The math is very simple, there are lots of bullets, only a few guns. There are many more opportunities for ammunition types to be mixed inadvertently, far fewer opportunities for confusing real guns with props.
Tom Roper said:
I gave a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question. With all due respect Charles, I have more decades of firearms experience on the range than you have with guns on the set. And I am wholeheartedly against real firearms being used like props, pointed at actors and camera operators, at any time one mistake from catastrophe. Replace the guns with props and ammunition mixups are no longer a concern.
Peter C.
Veteran
Having more experience at the firing range doesn't give your opinion more weight. Those are two completely different environments. I could also use your same argument to ban guns entirely then we would have no more gun related deaths in the US. There are many things that we allow even though there are risks associated with those activities. People are free to drive cars, smoke, sky dive, etc.
Repeating your opinion more vigorously doesn't make other opinions less valid. I posted to update people on the status of the case and to provide concrete information on what happened not to restart a shouting match.
Repeating your opinion more vigorously doesn't make other opinions less valid. I posted to update people on the status of the case and to provide concrete information on what happened not to restart a shouting match.
Last edited:
We should also eliminate cranes and cars and helicopters and planes and scissor lifts...... Notice that 3 people died on a set from a crane crash and there's no news. But put a gun and a star in the story and well, you know the rest.
- Indian 2 (TBA). On 19 February 2020, during the shooting of the film, a crane carrying a heavy flash light fell on the sets,[SUP][375][/SUP] resulting in the deaths of three crew members,[SUP][376][/SUP] including an assistant director and leaving ten more injured. Director S. Shankar and actors Kamal Haasan and Kajal Aggarwal had narrow escapes.[SUP][377][/SUP][SUP][378][/SUP]
- Street Outlaws: Fastest in America (2022). Actor Ryan Fellows died in a car crash in Las Vegas while participating in a race for the show. He lost control of his vehicle, which flipped over and caught fire.[SUP][379][/SUP]
- Campus PD (2011). Cameraman Greg Jacobsen was killed in a helicopter crash while filming at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania.[SUP][25][/SUP]
- Dangerous Flights (2013). On 24 February 2013, cameraman/director John Driftmier and conservationist Dr. Anthony King were killed in a plane crash in Kenya.
- G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013). A crew member was killed while dismantling a set in New Orleans, Louisiana, when the scissor lift he was on tipped over, causing him to fall to his death.[SUP][299][/SUP]
Peter C., if you took the lead in advocating the ban of guns entirely, I might join you. Your peers have attempted to craft reasonable practices and safety recommendations. Defending the use of real guns on the set for no good reason when there are safer alternatives that work just as well is a stupid position and you know it. I realize why, your hostility is directed at me. Mindful of that and respectful of you and Charles, I apologize and I'll leave at that.
Paul F., What is the alternative to a scissor lift? Isn't it already considered a best available safety practice? A safer alternative to ladders? I'm referring to using a prop as a safer alternative instead of exposing others to an unnecessary risk of negligence. It's an avoidable risk to others with a reasonable alternative, not a matter of restricting your personal liberties. The loss of life to Halyna Hutchins was preventable and her safety would have represented no compromise to the production.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
This is hardly my area of expertise so I won't pretend that it is. But as I understand it, the specific characteristics that a working gun firing a blank round exhibits include muzzle flash, blowback, recoil and shell ejection. In theory all of these could be managed with VFX to varying degrees of difficulty/expense. There are also a limited variety of complex prop guns that can emulate some or all of these actions.
"Rust" being a period film, the types of weapons required were specific and thus the sophisticated prop versions may not have been available. Even if they did have access to a non-firing replica vintage Colt.45 that could emulate the above characteristics, it would likely have been too expensive a rental for this low budget film. That left them with a working gun capable of shooting blanks to achieve the necessary effect they sought.
Of course, the penny-pinching didn't start with the gun. It began with the rate for the armorer position being low enough that all of the qualified and experienced armorers they approached turned the job down. It continued into a working environment where everything was rushed and corners were being cut. And the inexperience on the production side was such that even when concerns about gun safety practices on that show had been submitted to them in writing, no changes were being called for to mitigate the situation.
It was a classic mismanaged low-budget shitshow, notable only because this particular time, crossing their fingers and hoping for the best failed them in the most tragic way possible.
Last edited:
Spot on Charles, thank you.
There was a commentator or gunsmith somewhere I remember saying that a prop could have been fashioned by modifying a real gun not to fire live ammunition, thus having the accurate period look without the danger. He described a modification that would weld the cylinder holes and rebore them to a shallower depth that would accept the fitment of a blank cartridge but not the live round.
There was a commentator or gunsmith somewhere I remember saying that a prop could have been fashioned by modifying a real gun not to fire live ammunition, thus having the accurate period look without the danger. He described a modification that would weld the cylinder holes and rebore them to a shallower depth that would accept the fitment of a blank cartridge but not the live round.