A Diamond is just a piece of coal that made good under pressure!
...that's why I asked if he had the exif data to the photo: then we would have exposure, aperture/f-stop and other data defining the photo and wouldn't have to speculate about what-was-recorded-when-for-how-long.
My guess still: picture taken some milliseconds after ignition, projectile left the barrel, unburnt powder still not completely ignited by surrounding oxygen In the air, slide barely started to move backwards, muzzle hasn't even started to climb.
So much for the circumstances.
If ot is not a (sort of) double exposure (maybe just a bigger part of the exposure time with hammer back and a relatively short time after ignition) - and the lack of blur at the hammer and trigger finger seems to negate that - tjen something kicked the hammer back, IMHO.
Be it hammer bounce (someone know if this was a thing with 'early' USPs?), or the firing pin rebounding unter spring or gas pressure, kicking the hammer. ack (which - for some un known to me reason - isn't under full tension from the hammer strut/hammer spring.
And know: orfeo, tell us, before we all go BONKERS
Looking at the background, I'm seeing the camera struggling, so to speak. Camera operating as slow as it "thought" suitable makes perfect sense and matches the picture. Don't personally agree on how there should be blur on longer exposure. I've taken a ton of 1/30th second no-blur pictures. I hold firearms still as I'm firing them, so I'd expect them not to blur either through say the first .029 seconds of a .030 second exposure.. and that last .001 second is too little of the total to change things much in a fairly low res pic!Also agree completely. More than time to hear OP's theory, the evidence for it, and the evidence against other theories including normal operation.And know: orfeo, tell us, before we all go BONKERS
Last edited by trenace; 01-19-2017 at 05:42 PM.
Yup I also found the hands and background a mismatch, suggesting some local source of brightness, but (subjectively) didn't look like flash to me, for example usually flash has some reach to it and the background seems fairly close yet shows no sign of flash, good question for sure.
Though in and of itself, if we don't know exposure time, even with flash it could be that in the brief period of flash, the hammer was back, and the exposure continued until the fireball formed. If no solid evidence on exposure time, then no evidence that anything unusual happened mechanically.
Last edited by trenace; 01-19-2017 at 06:57 PM.
Fair questions all. . .
I don't recall whether the flash fired or not. The picture you see has been cropped. I believe the exif data can be extracted from the image file, but I don't know how and I don't have time to research it today. Maybe this evening I can try.
I hope my waiting to present my theory is not becoming annoying or burdensome. . . this thread is meant to be fun. Will definitely post it before the end of the day!
Again, you are all doing a really great job at untangling the mystery!
It's because it's a LEM model.
Simple as that!
Did I win?
What did I win?