Since there is no projectile leaving the barrel, blanks also do not cause recoil.Jusme wrote:Excaliber wrote:There's a good possibility the officer didn't know the difference between a blank and a live round.TexasTornado wrote:I've never seen or handled a blank, but would it look any different loaded into the weapon?parabelum wrote:It was a revolver.MeMelYup wrote:Wouldn't have to be a Glock. A lot of firearms sold specifically to police don't have the no magazine lockout.Beiruty wrote:While clearing and making gun safe. I speculate this what happened
He racked the pistol, eject a bullet BEFORE removing the magazine.
Removed the magazine and declared the pistol safe. It was Glock with no manual safety
And, the rest is will go in the annals of the news magazines.
"Lewis said that the department was unaware that live ammunition existed for the revolver he also said he was not sure how the fact that the gun was loaded was missed. He said that it was the department's belief that only blanks were available to the officer using the weapon."
http://www.news-press.com/story/news/cr ... /88500140/
I can understand the additional drama/realism of using blanks, but I think we've shown here that it's an unneeded risk. Add the sound effects via some speakers if needed.
The use of blanks at close range can also cause very serious injury and should not have been even considered under the circumstances described.
Everyone involved in planning or approving this tragedy was woefully negligent and likely ignorant.
Exactly, blanks are loud, and even the propellant at close range can and has caused injuries. We only used blanks in training outdoors, for our practicals, and never at close range. They do look, and feel different, I can't imagine loading a live round and mistaking it for a blank.
This adds more mystery to how one could unknowingly shoot someone more than once with the excuse that he thought he was firing blanks.