Thread by @StephenGutowski

This is possible if the gun had some kind of serious mechanical issue. But, I'm highly skeptical about claims like this. It should be easy for police to tell if the gun in question could fire without the trigger being pulled.

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1466113093411524611

It's true that very old single-action revolvers have more issues with accidental discharges. The gun used in this incident was a replica made by Pietta, according to police. Those guns should have transfer bars in them that address the safety issue.

The police should be able to determine pretty easily if the gun has a transfer bar or not. And how prone it would be to fire without the trigger being pulled when it's drawn from a holster.

As some in the mentions have pointed out, Pietta still makes replicas without transfer bars. I certainly hope they weren't using a gun like that on set. But, it does increase the chances of the gun firing without the trigger being pulled. I still find it unlikely.

Here is how an original-mechanism single-action revolver can fire without the trigger being pulled. It still requires a significant jolt to do so. But, this is what it looks like:

This is why you need to know the exact details of guns you're handling, especially in a professional setting like a movie set. Even I was too dismissive of this possibility when I first commented on it despite owning a single-action replica (with a hammer block) myself.

I knew of the cowboy load (leaving the chamber under the hammer of a single-action revolver empty), but only in the context of carrying a gun for fear of accidental discharges. I still think it's unlikely when drawing a gun from a holster, but more likely than I first thought.

I wrote more on this topic here: thereload.com/analysis-yes-a…