Solo ANH Hero Scope Mount. New Pics near the end
- Thread starter gavidoc
- Start date
Prop Runner
Sr Member
Something's bothered me since looking at your photo, Chris. Time for the Mother of all Analysis... 
From an engineering, ergonomic, and optical standpoint, such an assembly as I described in my last post makes no sense. So I peered over the photo and noticed some exciting new clues that lead my to believe that the vertical "arms" of the T-bracket are MUCH thicker than we previously thought. Look at the edges and features the arrows are pointing at - they strongly suggest a MUCH FATTER bracket in that area. :eek
So based on what I see, and dismissing the "seam" line you observed as a machining surface artifact (sorry, I have to in order to explore my theory ), this is what I came up with. I know the arms shouldn't be symmetrically wide - will correct on my next rev :
And how it would look on the Han blaster (I know the thumbwheel diameter should be larger, so just go with it for now ):
Note that you don't see any threads where the tumbwheel screw passes through the T-bracket - that's because I used simplified threads to keep the file size down:
Now discuss amongst yourselves...
- Gabe
From an engineering, ergonomic, and optical standpoint, such an assembly as I described in my last post makes no sense. So I peered over the photo and noticed some exciting new clues that lead my to believe that the vertical "arms" of the T-bracket are MUCH thicker than we previously thought. Look at the edges and features the arrows are pointing at - they strongly suggest a MUCH FATTER bracket in that area. :eek
So based on what I see, and dismissing the "seam" line you observed as a machining surface artifact (sorry, I have to in order to explore my theory
), this is what I came up with. I know the arms shouldn't be symmetrically wide - will correct on my next rev :
And how it would look on the Han blaster (I know the thumbwheel diameter should be larger, so just go with it for now
):
Note that you don't see any threads where the tumbwheel screw passes through the T-bracket - that's because I used simplified threads to keep the file size down:
Now discuss amongst yourselves...
- Gabe
Got Maul,
The mount I found was a "cradle". It just didn't have a "T" mount attached to it.
Another curiosity about this part is that it does resemble antenna or cable mounts. We have a few of these at work.
The mount I found was a "cradle". It just didn't have a "T" mount attached to it.
Another curiosity about this part is that it does resemble antenna or cable mounts. We have a few of these at work.
Prop Runner
Sr Member
Nobody?
- Gabe
- Gabe
amish
Sr Member
Gabe,
Those renderings of yours are SICK. If I only had a 1/4 of the talent to do that I would be happy.
I think it looks pretty damn good. The only part I am not sure of is the beveled bracket that mounts to the long rectangular piece. In my mind, that is a permanent fixture of that piece and not something added.
Though I could very well be missing something and be quite wrong.
Just my thoughts though. I got to start searching for this again.
Those renderings of yours are SICK. If I only had a 1/4 of the talent to do that I would be happy.
I think it looks pretty damn good. The only part I am not sure of is the beveled bracket that mounts to the long rectangular piece. In my mind, that is a permanent fixture of that piece and not something added.
Though I could very well be missing something and be quite wrong.
Just my thoughts though. I got to start searching for this again.
Prop Runner
Sr Member
Tom, first - thanks for the kind words. Second, that beveled bracket (male dovetail block) that mounts to the long rectangular piece (horizontal bar) already exists - just scroll up and look at the Sitting Target photo. That block has to be attached to the Mauser using 2 screws or one screw and a pin or it would rotate, so 2 flathead screws are what I used to attach it to the horizontal bar (the real one might have used oval head screws set in counterbored holes on the dovetail block). And because in the preproduction (greenish) photo of the blaster you can see the bottom of the vertical bracket (with the large fillet round) drop just below the bottom of the horizontal bar, then the dovetail block has to be located near the top of the bar the way I did it. Dimensionally, I'm at most a couple of milimeters off wrt the real thing (with the exception of my previously mentioned design "oopses").
As I see it, the only uncertainties regarding the true geometry of the vertical bracket are as follows:
1) The width of the upper female dovetail rails
2) The true thickness and width of the two vertical arms
3) The exact location where the bracket meets the scope cradle
4) The geometry of the interface between the bracket and the scope cradle (my interpretation is a best guess)
5) All the fillets, rounds, chamfers, and thread diameters
I'm fairly certain that the original bracket, like the SKS scope rings posted earlier in this thread, was investment cast and then subjected to secondary grinding, cutting, and milling operations to bring the dovetail and scope ring mating surfaces back into blueprint tolerances. That's standard procedure with cast parts.
- Gabe
Second, that beveled bracket (male dovetail block) that mounts to the long rectangular piece (horizontal bar) already exists - just scroll up and look at the Sitting Target photo. That block has to be attached to the Mauser using 2 screws or one screw and a pin or it would rotate, so 2 flathead screws are what I used to attach it to the horizontal bar (the real one might have used oval head screws set in counterbored holes on the dovetail block). And because in the preproduction (greenish) photo of the blaster you can see the bottom of the vertical bracket (with the large fillet round) drop just below the bottom of the horizontal bar, then the dovetail block has to be located near the top of the bar the way I did it. Dimensionally, I'm at most a couple of milimeters off wrt the real thing (with the exception of my previously mentioned design "oopses").As I see it, the only uncertainties regarding the true geometry of the vertical bracket are as follows:
1) The width of the upper female dovetail rails
2) The true thickness and width of the two vertical arms
3) The exact location where the bracket meets the scope cradle
4) The geometry of the interface between the bracket and the scope cradle (my interpretation is a best guess)
5) All the fillets, rounds, chamfers, and thread diameters
I'm fairly certain that the original bracket, like the SKS scope rings posted earlier in this thread, was investment cast and then subjected to secondary grinding, cutting, and milling operations to bring the dovetail and scope ring mating surfaces back into blueprint tolerances. That's standard procedure with cast parts.
- Gabe
boatbuilder1
Well-Known Member
I do not follow this thread often but since seeing all the hard work that is put in to reasearch
could it possibly be a part from a lathe the dovetail joint is right on
charlie
could it possibly be a part from a lathe the dovetail joint is right on
charlie
I don't believe that the vertical T bracket is attached to a dovetail mate on the horizontal bracket. Reason being that based on both the pre and the post production photos of this gun, the scope is not parallel to the horzontal bracket but is tilted.
There is the possiblity that a "dovetail" attachment put on the horzizontal bracket was not put on parallel thus resulting in the tilt to the scope but without seeing behind there we will never know.
There is the possiblity that a "dovetail" attachment put on the horzizontal bracket was not put on parallel thus resulting in the tilt to the scope but without seeing behind there we will never know.
Prop Runner
Sr Member
Gav,
The vertical bracket looks perfectly perpendicular to the horizontal bar:
We know that the bar itself is not parallel to the Mauser but tilted up toward the front, as we can see above. And yes, the dovetail block could be slightly misalighned on the horizontal bar if the attachment holes are not parallel. Can you post a photo that demonstrates the scope being out of parallel wrt to the horizontal bar? I'm not seeing it here.
Thanks,
- Gabe
spinner 44
Sr Member
Gabe,
This pic shows the scope tilt quite clearly (I confess i did not realised it untill Gavidoc pointed it- thanks). If you draw a line in the longitudinal axis of the scope and the Mauser you can easily verify how the scop is tilted slightly to the left.
BTW Gabe I LOVE your renderings.
All the best,
Sergio
This pic shows the scope tilt quite clearly (I confess i did not realised it untill Gavidoc pointed it- thanks). If you draw a line in the longitudinal axis of the scope and the Mauser you can easily verify how the scop is tilted slightly to the left.
BTW Gabe I LOVE your renderings.
All the best,
Sergio
That could be due to something as simple as different thickness spacers between the gun and the horizontal bar.
The scope is tilting away and up from the gun.
Jim
The scope is tilting away and up from the gun.
Jim
Originally posted by spinner 44@Oct 30 2005, 12:08 PM
Gabe,
This pic shows the scope tilt quite clearly (I confess i did not realised it untill Gavidoc pointed it- thanks). If you draw a line in the longitudinal axis of the scope and the Mauser you can easily verify how the scop is tilted slightly to the left.
BTW Gabe I LOVE your renderings.
All the best,
Sergio
[snapback]1106385[/snapback]
Prop Runner
Sr Member
Sergio, thanks for the compliments.
I also believe that the horizontal bar is not equally spaced in the front and rear. Just to be sure, I did a parallelism check between the scope and the bar with calipers and there doesn't seem to be any deviation. However, the gap between the bar and the Mauser should be getting narrower toward the rear due to the laws of perspective, but instead the gap widens, as the red and yellow lines demonstrate:
That's as convincing as photo-evidence can get that the entire mount is askew, not just the scope or part of the mount.
Also, it may be of interest to note that the little white arc showing in the suppressor-booster top hole is very likely the edge of the Mauser bull barrel. Don't know if that's been pointed out before.
- Gabe
I also believe that the horizontal bar is not equally spaced in the front and rear. Just to be sure, I did a parallelism check between the scope and the bar with calipers and there doesn't seem to be any deviation. However, the gap between the bar and the Mauser should be getting narrower toward the rear due to the laws of perspective, but instead the gap widens, as the red and yellow lines demonstrate:
That's as convincing as photo-evidence can get that the entire mount is askew, not just the scope or part of the mount.
Also, it may be of interest to note that the little white arc showing in the suppressor-booster top hole is very likely the edge of the Mauser bull barrel. Don't know if that's been pointed out before.
- Gabe
paulcarson
Well-Known Member
I'm loving this thread. I'm happy that I was lucky enough to contribute something to this hobby at last.
Prop Runner
Sr Member
Hey Paul - I can't seem to find anything by you on this topic. I'd love to hear what you contributed in case I missed it.
- Gabe
paulcarson
Well-Known Member
I was the one who started the thread on the sitting target gun. I posted the photo of Ollie Reed and Ian Mcshane.
Prop Runner
Sr Member
DOH.
A thousand apologies for forgetting, Paul - perhaps you can ask one of the mods to merge the two threads - there's a lot of crossover as it is.
Now to cement your legacy, score us a VHS or bootleg DVD and join the hard work in deconstructing this sucker.
- Gabe
Prop Runner
Sr Member
It's all good, Tom. Even I get dizzy from all the often overlapping details and counter-theories.
Thanks,
- Gabe
Interesting... Charlie, could you post or e-mail me a pic of the part you're thinking of? None of the lathes I've seen have anything similar, but I'm no machinist. I'm at proprunner@aol.com.
Thanks,
- Gabe
Originally posted by Prop Runner@Oct 30 2005, 05:40 PM
Sergio, thanks for the compliments.
I also believe that the horizontal bar is not equally spaced in the front and rear. Just to be sure, I did a parallelism check between the scope and the bar with calipers and there doesn't seem to be any deviation. However, the gap between the bar and the Mauser should be getting narrower toward the rear due to the laws of perspective, but instead the gap widens, as the red and yellow lines demonstrate:
That's as convincing as photo-evidence can get that the entire mount is askew, not just the scope or part of the mount.
Also, it may be of interest to note that the little white arc showing in the suppressor-booster top hole is very likely the edge of the Mauser bull barrel. Don't know if that's been pointed out before.Â
- Gabe
[snapback]1106468[/snapback]
Excellent work Gents.
I think one factor contributing to skewing the alignment of the scope mount is the fact that the front end (magazine) of a Mauser is narrower than the back. When I built my Han Hero I used 1/4" spacers front and rear and the offset of the scope mount is very close to what we see in the pic above. I'll try to post some pics when I get home.
Cheers,
Dave C
Similar threads
