Professional film set armorer gives her general take on the Baldwin tragedy

[steve2470]

A lot of people are messaging me about yesterday's tragedy that was an on-set firearms death (because I am a film armorer, for those who don't know).

As both a human and a professional, it is extremely upsetting. My thoughts are with Halyna Hutchins' loved ones

Link to tweet

Very long thread, at: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1451797888158375937.html

A lot of people are messaging me about yesterday's tragedy that was an on-set firearms death (because I am a film armorer, for those who don't know).

As both a human and a professional, it is extremely upsetting. My thoughts are with Halyna Hutchins' loved ones

I am not going to share backchannel rumors or speculation I'm hearing but I will answer a few things about movies and guns that people are asking (thread)

One is: "how are there not safety measures to prevent this?" The answer is: There are. There are very, very many
Qualified armorers have many, many safety precautions and redundancies.

Honestly I keep trying to come up with a scenario where it's possible for this to happen under standard gun safety procedures on film sets and I am so horribly stumped


(and horrified that I am stumped because it means this was likely so bad, and the failures here likely so unfathomably huge and many)

Our procedures plan in mistakes, actor error, etc. There should never be any single fail point; if anyone makes a mistake there are many multiple other things backing up the safety

Safety is always #1. Nothing can compromise it. There are other parts of the job (e.g. helping the director get the shots they want) but nothing can ever interfere with safety

In fact even in helping the director get their shots -- it's all about advising them on ways to do it SAFELY that will still look cool and get the effect they want.

I would tell directors "no" all the time (and provide them with a safe alternative).

I can think of so many things I would do on every film set as standard, any *one* of which would have prevented something like this.

We plan for that redundancy, we plan for things to go wrong and for actors to mess up

Of course, I am talking as -- I would hope to say -- a good armorer. These are all things me and my colleagues do as standard.

Yes there are a handful of bad armorers out there... and production companies also cut corners and that's getting worse


What I mean by that is that they will hire someone unqualified for cheap, or they will try to do gunfire without any qualified person on the set, and production will allow it...

...and other people on the crew who should put a stop to it (like the 1st AD (= 1st Assistant Director), who is the final word on safety) do not shut it down...

Or the 1st AD etc may not have the experience to shut it down if production cut too many corners and has, for example, a green 1st AD for cheap also. This is devastating and I suspect has played into other non-firearms film set tragedies

There are positions where it is very, very important to have qualified people for safety reasons. 1st AD. Armorer, SFX, rigging, stunts. You need people who know exactly what they're doing.

Now I do not know what happened here. But I want to convey to you, as someone who has worked firearms on probably hundreds of film sets, that this is both deeply, deeply upsetting and also deeply shocking

A tragedy happening in *this particular* way defies everything I know about how we treat guns on film sets. It implies to me that something was likely very, very wrong here.

My colleagues and I have been trying to figure out how this could happen when following our basic safety procedures and we keep ending at a loss. We keep ending at "but how is that possible?"

Which implies something even more appalling -- that very basic, very standard safety procedures may not have been followed. And that nobody shut the production down when they weren't.

My heart is breaking to imagine this

Second thing people are asking. "Was this a real gun? why are real guns on set? how could a prop gun fire?"

The media reports are muddling things a bit here so I don't blame people for being confused.

First of all, blank guns are real guns. Semi-autos are what we call "blank adapted" but that is purely for the *function* of the gun, not for safety (a projectile could still exit). Revolvers, shotguns, etc we use unmodified

In other words, you can take a revolver from a movie set and load live ammo into it. (We sometimes have demilled props and other variations but blank fire would almost always be real guns)

So it's very very important to know what is being loaded into the gun. It's also very important to know when a gun IS loaded at all

Our safety procedures are built around this

No one on a film set should ever have any question in their mind about what's going on with the guns. When I am keying a set I am very, very clear on everything to everybody at all times

When we say a "prop gun" on a film set we mean a rubber or a replica that does not fire. We do not mean a blank firing gun. We call blank fire guns real guns because as I said, they are real.

Sometimes real guns are used "cold" (unloaded) if either there's no matching prop gun or if they want a closeup (the props are usually not as nice looking in detail), but for wide shots props are fine

Actors can feel & see that a prop is not something that can fire. Also props can be thrown/dropped without damaging the firearm. So lots of reasons to use rubbers/replicas where you can

Real guns are always -- always -- in my possession unless they're being used for a scene, in which case I'm right there watching. We treat real guns very seriously whether they're loaded or not

If we're using the real guns, cold (unloaded) guns are always used outside of gunfire scenes. If the ammo has to be visible we use dummies. These are *always* carefully checked.

Dummies are visibly different from live ammo in that the primer in the back is punched. You can also "click through" by pulling the trigger pointed at the ground to show that they do not fire.

When I am using a cold gun or a cold gun with dummies in it, I am VERY clear with the cast and crew about it. I physically open and show that the weapon is cold to the actors, the crew

That's at minimum. Comfort levels differ -- I worked with one cinematographer who wanted to be shown every few minutes that the gun was still cold because he was right next to the actor, even though the gun hadn't left his sight. No problem. I showed him every single take

This is part of the job. Nobody should EVER feel their safety is being compromised on a film set. I always considered it part of my job -- and an important part of my job -- to make sure people felt safe

Of course *being* safe is #1. But no one should ever have to doubt that that's true. So making sure to communicate with everyone on the set so they *know* they are in fact safe is also important

Before going "hot" for a gunfire scene, we always choreograph & rehearse everything carefully with the director, crew, actors, stunt people

Everyone needs to know exactly what they're doing before any guns are loaded. Where they're standing, where they're moving, where they're aiming.

If anything violates one of our safety redundancies, we change it. If anyone's uncomfortable, we figure out another way.
When we "go hot" that means we are loading the guns with blanks and doing blank gunfire. Everyone is very, very clear on this. Very loud notifications, announced and repeated, announced over radio and very loud on set.

It is treated very seriously.

We only load the exact amount of blank ammunition needed for the scene. We only have hot guns on set for exactly the amount of time it takes to film the gunfire

I am always right there watching the scene extremely closely and making sure the actors and stunt people are exactly where they should be, doing exactly what they should be

And yes, actors screw up sometimes. Miss their mark, or turn the wrong way, etc. That's why we have so many redundant safety protocols.

No one's life or safety should *ever* depend solely on the actor hitting their mark correctly.

Gunfire scenes are usually very, very short. Sometimes only a few seconds. Very often less than a minute. Remember, films are cut together from lots of shots.

We only go hot for the specific shots that have guns firing in them -- not any of the adjacent ones.

As soon as the scene is over, we go in and clear the guns. Nobody moves on until we finish. The set is still hot -- the guns are still considered hot, even if (since we only loaded what they're supposed to fire) they fired all the blanks.

We clear the guns and announce them clear and then it's announced and re-announced over the set and over the radio -- we announce it, 1st AD announces it, PAs pick up & repeat. Again, it's very important that everyone on set knows the status of the guns. No guessing games

Only after the guns are announced clear does everything start moving on. At least, this is the way it *should* work on a properly-run set. This is certainly how it works on my sets.

Are there sets that are improperly run? Yes. There shouldn't be, but there are. I don't think there are many -- it's why tragedies like this are thankfully rare. It would honestly be a shock for me to step onto a film set and have to fight for these procedures to be followed

In general I arrive expecting that this will be everyone else's expectations / procedures as well.

Most importantly, I expect people to always listen to / respect me on all of the safety protocols (if not, I would walk away and take the guns with me)

And if proper gun safety is not being followed? If the armorer or propmaster is endangering people?

For immediate safety purposes, in that case there are other people who *should* step in to shut things down

The 1st AD / production stepping in and shutting things down is what we would want/expect to happen if things aren't being run safely, and it's another thing that has to fail for things to go really, really bad.

Experienced 1st ADs absolutely know how gunfire scenes should work. They know how to run them in conjunction with an armorer. They know if proper safety is being followed.

(You never, ever want to lack a good 1st AD. This is only one of many reasons.)

(In fact there are rumors that other (non-gun) tragedies happened because the 1st AD was not allowed to do their job in re: safety & walked off set.)

It is so, so important for all these safety-related positions to hire qualified, experienced people and then to listen to them.
Next question I see -- "how could blanks hurt someone? Do blanks still spit out paper or another projectile? What was a film gun doing firing live ammo???"

The last question is one of mine as well (if that's what happened, which I've seen rumored but not confirmed). Live ammo should never, ever, ever be mixed in on a film set.

There are live ammo shows like Top Shot and they have entirely different safety protocols. If live ammo was mixed in on this set that is unfathomably bad. It is a tremendous problem and not even slightly understandable or okay.

But yes, blanks are still dangerous. Except for shotguns I always used "crimped" blanks -- that is, no wad (nothing coming out of the gun)

Some blanks do have paper wads & are more dangerous bc that is a projectile. I would not use those for films. So in that case, no projectile
But even without that, the air becomes concussive. What is coming out of the gun is air, concussion, powder, flame.

The concussive force dissipates at 15 feet or so for small caliber rounds

We have different size blanks as well -- full load, half load, quarter load (referring to the amount of gunpowder)

There are logistics / permitting / aesthetic / functional / safety reasons that go into load size choice. Not all firearms work with any load size, permitting can be specific to load size, etc. The tl;dr is that there are various considerations that go into this question.

Finally, yes, if there is anything stuck in the gun and a blank is put behind it -- yes, that stuck thing can become a projectile, functioning like a bullet

That's why one of the things we always do every single time is check the guns all the way down the barrel.

That's also why one of the basic safety protocols is that blank firing guns are never pointed directly at someone else -- not at other actors, not at crew

I will emphasize -- I *never* set up actors aiming at a person. Even though blanks dissipate at 15ft -- no. We don't do it. Even though if everything went as expected it would be fine -- no.

There are *plenty* of camera angles to make it look like guns are pointed where they're not.

And if the camera crew wants to film from near the line of fire we can also barrier by putting up lexan or the like as an additional safety protocol

(Remember also that that's still redundant with other safety -- we're not ever doing something like firing live ammo at a camera operator and trusting lexan to save them -- DEFINITELY not)

So that's blanks -- yes they are dangerous, yes we plan for that, yes we check the guns *always*.

NO there should never be live ammo mixed in (!). NO blanks should never be fired directly at another person even from a "safe" distance.

I meant to add more questions I've seen to this but this has gotten very long already, and it is very late and I am very tired and heartsick about this. I may try to come back later if people find this helpful (I hope people do)

Just know that there is a *lot* of misinformation going around right now on how movie guns work. Please do not take anything you see on Twitter at face value. (A lot of media articles are getting some industry things factually wrong too.)

And please know that when very basic, very standard safety protocols for movie gun safety are followed, this sequence of events is not something we expect to be possible. Not ever, not even rarely.

So it's very important that we find out what happened here and why.

[Sympthsical]

1. Super informative thread

Thanks for sharing it.

[jeffreyi]

2. Good onfo.

Really, this is unimaginable.

[RockRaven]

3. Excellent find, thanks for sharing it with us...

For others like me who were not previously familiar with her: Wikipedia tells us that she is an award winning sci-fi author and the first woman to be a professional armorer in Hollywood.

[steve2470]

4. thanks for the info, corrected her gender in the subject line nt

[niyad]

10. Thank you for this most interesting information. I will have to check out her sci-fi

writings.

MIT graduate in mathematics as well.

[Eliot Rosewater]

5. Outstanding, our family has a small child on a Western set as I type this

we are very concerned, I have asked this person a question, thanks for the link.

[lagomorph777]

43. There is zero excuse for having actual guns on a movie set in the 21st century.

Even if you are OK with continuing to make movies that promote violence.

For decades now, it's been 100% possible to drop in muzzle flash, etc with CGI, and make it look more real than real. Modern sound FX can totally make the bang.

It's inexcusable to have weapons on a set.

[ananda]

6. Very informative and helpful!

!!!

[Mr.Bill]

7. Great info.

Well worth reading the whole thing. Thanks.

[niyad]

8. Thank you for this amazingly informative find. As I suspected, NO live ammo on a set.

[dchill]

9. EVERY BIT of information in this article is important...

...and relevant. I perceive that less than half of it was being observed on the set of the Baldwin movie.

[orleans]

11. wow--you were right. longest thread i've seen so far. and good info. nt

[Dial H For Hero]

12. Excellent article, well worth the full read.

[usaf-vet]

13. \

[Crunchy Frog]

14. Maybe it's time to reassess the use of real guns on film sets.

[lagomorph777]

44. There is ZERO excuse for live guns on film sets.

CGI can do a better job anyway!

[keithhs28]

15. This is why there are unions...

...unions or guilds, like the Directors Guild of America (DGA), the IATSE union locals (cinematographers, camera assistants, scene hands, grips, gaffers, property masters, and other crafts persons, etc.), the Teamsters (drivers, location managers, animal wranglers, etc.) all have members who are professionals with years of experience.

If a film production company is so 'low budget' that they have to 'cut corners' by hiring non-union crew people, tragedies are more likely to happen and ultimately cost the production company much, much more.

Unions ensure proper working conditions, set safety ('Safety First Is No Accident'), pension, health, and welfare benefits.

Without unions, it's the lawless west with the robber barons.

[NullTuples]

28. Exactly. And Baldwin is the film's co-producer making budget decisions.

He's not as blameless as people are assuming.

[live love laugh]

38. Here we go with the blamers when it's been said over and over it was an accident. nt

[NullTuples]

39. This really is quite fascinating, how in this case some want so badly to not

...have to blame the person who pulled the trigger, no matter what.

[live love laugh]

40. It's more "fascinating" that "some" with a hateful agenda

will stoop so low as to use an obvious tragedy for political revenge.

[yagotme]

42. An "accident" is usually preventable, if you follow safety rules.

This one sure was. Driving down the interstate at 90 miles an hour, in a rainstorm, with slick tires, you're very likely to have an "accident". But you can do things to prevent that. There were many things that went wrong on this set before Baldwin pulled the trigger, some of which he was "responsible" for. Including pointing a firearm at someone, and pulling the trigger.

[lagomorph777]

45. Plane crashes are "accidents" too. But they always investigate the cause; there are always people

behind it somewhere.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

16. Thanks for the detailed explanation.

[LakeArenal]

17. I would still like to understand how live ammo was on a set.

[Roy Rolling]

20. There are strict rules prohibiting firearms on entire locations.

No firearms, no ammo. No drugs, alcohol, etc. it’s a workplace for Chrissake.

Coincidentally, I got a studio memo this week regarding a controversy where someone was trying to clarify the second amendment ramifications of our weapons bans.

[Roy Rolling]

18. First, I am heartsick

I’ve worked with Alec Baldwin, and I spent nearly two decades on movie sets as a key medic. This explanation is spot on. An armorers job is the most critical check against accidents. Like he said, there are many redundancies.

I worked once with a director named John Woo and know the care needed on a film with multiple stunts and gunfire. This armorer gets it, and also knows many people dropped the ball. But he’s too professional to blame his own craft, but understands that almost any on-set gun accident is the fault of the armorer in some degree. But the people who had her back on this show failed her miserably. They’re the ones I fault for negligence or inexperience.

Fire me if you like, that’s my opinion from over 30 years in films. It’s a fuc*ing tragedy.😢

[yardwork]

34. She. The author of this thread is a woman. She's a professional armorer.

[Poiuyt]

19. Very informative - thank you

[prodigitalson]

21. Its so negligent...it would make more sense if it was intentional

I'm sure it wasn't but...holy shit.

[LakeArenal]

22. What? That would make more sense to you? Yikes.

[prodigitalson]

27. Simple

People murder people every day. This is a rarity of stupidity.

[wnylib]

23. Excellent thread that answers so many questions.

From what this professional says, it looks like sloppy safety procedures - or lack of them - are responsible for what happened. Also looks like finances might have been a contributing issue, cutting corners to save money by not hiring a well qualified person to control the weapons and safety protocols. An accident waiting to happen.

Some peopke have suggested that the shooting might have been deliberate, a setup, with various possible motives. I even wondered about that possibility. I'm sure that thorough investigators also take into account that possibility. But right now, without knowing more details, but as a result of this professional's explanation, it looks like an accedent caused by negligence.

One question that occurs to me now is this: If the safety protocols were shoddy and corners were cut in hiring qualified people to save money, what was a big name star like Alec Baldwin doing in a movie whose filming protocols were so bad?

[dalton99a]

24. Kick

[FuzzyRabbit]

25. Steve2470, thanks for posting this.

[Jon King]

26. But why were the crew in the direction the gun was fired??

All this makes sense but the other question is regardless of cold or hot or live or blanks or dummy ammo, was the trigger pulled while the gun was pointed in the direction of the crew?

The number one rule even with what you are certain is an unloaded guns is to treat it like a live gun and never have the barrel in the direction of anything but the target.

In the end the person holding the gun is responsible, even if told it is unloaded.

[LisaL]

33. They were rehearsing with what was supposed to have been an empty gun.

For the actual filming, the crew wasn't going to remain in that location. The gun should have been checked before Baldwin was given it.

[Cozmo]

29. Thank you Steve for this informative post. I appreciate your expertise.

This was a tragic incident and my heart is with Halyna's family. There is a lot of speculations and emotions and facts are being intertwined. If possible, I would appreciate getting your further perspective as this sad story unfolds. Workplace safety should always be a top concern. Thanks again.

[monkeyman1]

30. this is a keeper ,I burned it to a disk !

[Martin Eden]

31. Thank you for that detailed info

Sounds like corners were really cut on that set as a result of decisions made by someone in a position of responsibility.

[LisaL]

32. Is there any training or certification required for armorers?

This particular armorer wasn't experienced, Rust being only a second movie for which she was a "head armorer."
She had concerns before the first movie that she didn't have enough experience.
It doesn't sound like she had to go to school or got some official training/certification (other than from her father)

[Hortensis]

35. Thanks, Steve2470. I learned a lot. Standard safety protocols are far more

stringent and redundant than I imagined, and I assumed they were both.

Wikipedia: S. L. Huang (rhymes with "wrong" ) is a Hugo winning science fiction author as well as a professional armorer in Hollywood. Huang completed a degree in mathematics at MIT before moving to Los Angeles. ... Huang has also worked as a stuntwoman and firearms expert.

[burrowowl]

36. Very informative and interesting article!

[live love laugh]

37. My niece just called it a setup. I was astonished bc that also crossed my mind.

This morning on CBS Sunday Morning they said the director yelled “cold gun” then tossed the weapon to Baldwin who immediately fired it. I’m sure that’s not part of safety protocol.


The article makes me even more skeptical:

“...very basic, very standard safety procedures may not have been followed..."

[tblue37]

41. K&R for visibility. nt