There must be more to this story

Vitaeus said:

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2010/dec/17/man-wearing-holster-accidentally-shoots-into/

Click to expand...

I would like to know; the make/model (oops, I can't read - Smith and Wesson 500 revolver ) of the firearm, holster type and if alcohol played a roll.

Unless the holster he was wearing was made of paper, or wasn't intended for the gun in the first-place, I just don't buy it.

All the S&W 500 revolvers I see on the S&W website are SA/DA, so I figure this gubber was wearing it around with the hammer back in the holster or he was playing with it, most likely the latter.

I just don't see a gun with a 10 pound DA trigger pull going off without a finger pulling it.

Yea...I don't buy his story, but if a gunsmith looks at it and says there is something mechanically wrong with the internal safeties that would have allowed this, well...I will eat one of my barrel cleaning cottons.

$100 says he was messing around with live ammunition when he shouldn't have been.

Likely something to do with "Quick Draw McDraw" and the trigger finger where it should not have been.

Thank God no one was injured. If he is charged, reckless indangerment is much better than being charged with involuntary manslaughter!

Really? Revolver accidentally fired?

/facepalm

Sorry "Homer" this pistol didn't discharge just because you sat down hard. You had your finger on the trigger when it went off. If it was an old antique I might believe this but since it is a modern pistol, and also a Double Action, it has a feature that keeps the hammer from setting off a round UNLESS THE TRIGGER IS PULLED!

As the old farmer told his son, "Don't eat that Elmer, it's Horseshit".

What's sad about this story is that there are "dumbos" out there that will believe it just went off. "You know how dangerous those guns can be".

BTW, he can be real happy that the round missed his toe. His shoe would fit real loose if it hadn't.
Maybe he should consider playing with something he was born with rather than guns. At least it would be safer for his neighbors.

Owwwweeeee

I've got one of these revolvers.... must have a 15 pound pull on double action! About impossible to have an "accidental" discharge in the manner described UNLESS the revolver was improperly holstered and SOMETHING with some mass and strength got in the trigger-guard.

Now, with the hammer back the pull is MUCH lighter. But IT STILL AIN"T GOING OFF UNLESS SOMETHING GETS IN THE TRIGGER GUARD AND PULLS THE TRIGGER!

My "guess" is that the guy had it in a waist band OR JUST IN HIS HAND and with the hammer back as he played and then he sat down with a thump on his rump with is finger on the trigger and he heard a HUGE boom. Strange-- no mention that I saw in the report of damage to any furniture LIKE THE CHAIR HE WAS "SUPPOSEDLY" SITTING IN WHEN THIS HAPPENED.

trigger dr said:

Click to expand...

wtf!!!

I agree with those of you saying that his story in BS. His best action is to stick with that story and don't change it one bit. He better have it burned into his memory so he doesn't waiver.

With that said I am sure he has learned a valuable lesson and will not forget it. Unless he is stupid beyond help he won't do it again so pay the fine if there is one and quit playing Dirty Harry.

JoeSparky said:

I've got one of these revolvers.... must have a 15 pound pull on double action! About impossible to have an "accidental" discharge in the manner described UNLESS the revolver was improperly holstered and SOMETHING with some mass and strength got in the trigger-guard.

Now, with the hammer back the pull is MUCH lighter. But IT STILL AIN"T GOING OFF UNLESS SOMETHING GETS IN THE TRIGGER GUARD AND PULLS THE TRIGGER!

My "guess" is that the guy had it in a waist band OR JUST IN HIS HAND and with the hammer back as he played and then he sat down with a thump on his rump with is finger on the trigger and he heard a HUGE boom. Strange-- no mention that I saw in the report of damage to any furniture LIKE THE CHAIR HE WAS "SUPPOSEDLY" SITTING IN WHEN THIS HAPPENED.

Click to expand...

Even if the hammer was back and by some chance the holster caused the trigger to release it, the trigger has to be fully pulled back to pull the "hammer block" out of position so the hammer can fully drop and fire the round. Likewise if the thumb was on the hammer.
For those that aren't familiar with modern revolvers, take an unloaded one and look through the gap at the rear of the cylinder. Shouldn't see a firing pin with the hammer down. Now, cock it, put your thumb on the hammer and by pulling the trigger all the way back and holding it, when the hammer is released you will see the firing pin between the "breech face" and the cylinder, through the gap. When you release the trigger then the firing pin will be retracted. This is a safety feature many manufacturers, especially S&W, use to keep the firearm from discharging when there is no finger pulling the trigger fully back. This is similar to the firing pin lock on a semi-automatic pistol although the operation is different. This "safety feature" became pretty standard on revolvers after some "Homer" in Texas shot himself in the leg and then sued Ruger.

There are no "what if's" in this case, the dude had his finger on the trigger. If the gun WAS in the holster, the side-blast from the gap between forcing cone and cylinder is enough to blow out a chunk of meat, not to mention the muzzle blast. He's not only real stupid, but also real lucky.

Dumb question

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears the crash, does it still make a sound?

How can he be charged for reckless endangerment if the apartment was empty?....under the law, who was endangered?

I'm not versed in Washington State law and am not going to go researching it [sop to "The Rules"], but I'll wager that "shooting into an occupied dwelling" or something very similar to that is on the books as part of reckless endangerment.

Even though the tenants were not inside the apartment it was/is technically "occupied" by virture of being where someone resides and has their abode (wonderful legal distinctions between those two synonyms).

Being as how I agree that there were some shinnanigans going on to cause a S&W 500 to discharge while it was in the holster (barring either an improper holster or true mechanical failure), our intrepid storyteller oight to be glad reckless endangerment is all he got charged with. And I'll give good odds he will be able to plea it down, too.

Sure hope he learned something from all that will be involved.

stay safe.

.45ACPaddy said:

$100 says he was messing around with live ammunition when he shouldn't have been.

Click to expand...

Like this genius!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCi1uNdYgbU

jbone said:

Like this genius!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCi1uNdYgbU

Click to expand...

Copied directly from that video site:

"By the way, these are "dummy" rounds I'm using that were made for me by a reloader. They have no powder and spent primers. Live rounds should never be handled like this in an urban setting."

Back OT: Be willing to add to the pot that says he had his bugger hook on the trigger. It states that he was unfamiliar with it as it belongs to a friend.

One of the cardinal rules of firearm safety: "Know your weapon."

SFCRetired said:

Copied directly from that video site:

"By the way, these are "dummy" rounds I'm using that were made for me by a reloader. They have no powder and spent primers. Live rounds should never be handled like this in an urban setting."

Back OT: Be willing to add to the pot that says he had his bugger hook on the trigger. It states that he was unfamiliar with it as it belongs to a friend.

One of the cardinal rules of firearm safety: "Know your weapon."

Click to expand...

Thanks, I complety missed the text, I've alwasy been a look at the pictures guy.

NavyLT said:

First Name: Mo
Last Name: Ron

Click to expand...

I emailed your .mil and got the out of office, on vacation?

jt59 said:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears the crash, does it still make a sound?

How can he be charged for reckless endangerment if the apartment was empty?....under the law, who was endangered?

Click to expand...

He didn't know it was empty.