ANH Hero DL-44 Discussion - Three ANH Greeblies Found

[chubsANDdoggers]

It looks the same to me?

Regardless it’s the wrong style thumbscrew to begin with. The scope and the upper mount rings are the only real value here. The rest is a distraction and sadly another misleading representation of this beloved blaster.

Still though.. might be fun to draw up

 

[thd9791]

unless they milled out/cleaned it up, the earlier one is thicker, with a smaller hole lol

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

Maybe. But it’s a little hard to tell from that pic alone. This one here it looks much bigger to be fair. In my eyes it looks to be the same..

 

[DarthWilder]

Interesting claim:

A rig of a Hensoldt-Wetzlar 3x sniper scope with a frame mountable base assembly was put together, giving the DL-44 much of its distinctive profile. This scope and base assembly was shared between three Han Solo blasters.

Collectible Firearms for Serious Gun Collectors

With a limited budget, George Lucas turned to surplus guns to arm the many characters of "Star Wars: A New Hope" including Han Solo's blaster.

www.rockislandauction.com

 

[MastahBlastah]

This could make sense from a productuon standpoint, especially if they only had one scope, or didn't want to machine multiple mounts, etc. Three different base guns for different purposes, with the mount/scope swapped onto whichever was being filmed. Would explain the excessive wear on the crossbar (frankly this makes more sense to me than imagining them breaking the gun down over and over to store it, knowing that it was distressing the paint). Could also explain the mis-matched upper and lower (only one had to fire, why not mix them up and make on with all the best parts, one with all the ugliest, etc. Still sketchy tho, because which mount/crossbar is this, then? Perhaps the blaster we've seen in all of the promo/continuity/non-screen reference isn't the only blaster used on screen. I know that this has been discussed, just throwing it back out there. I'd be very interested to read what they consider "provenance" of all of these parts.

 

[kpax]

It’s not.

 

[thd9791]

This could make sense from a productuon standpoint, especially if they only had one scope, or didn't want to machine multiple mounts, etc. Three different base guns for different purposes, with the mount/scope swapped onto whichever was being filmed. Would explain the excessive wear on the crossbar (frankly this makes more sense to me than imagining them breaking the gun down over and over to store it, knowing that it was distressing the paint). Could also explain the mis-matched upper and lower (only one had to fire, why not mix them up and make on with all the best parts, one with all the ugliest, etc. Still sketchy tho, because which mount/crossbar is this, then? Perhaps the blaster we've seen in all of the promo/continuity/non-screen reference isn't the only blaster used on screen. I know that this has been discussed, just throwing it back out there. I'd be very interested to read what they consider "provenance" of all of these parts.

From that letter, it appears the cross bar, knobs and mount were newly fabricated, the MG81 flash hider was a different one found in a parts bin and the gun.... supposedly was a back-up that was also prepped with a bull barrel back in the 70s (I have my doubts about that one)

We're at odds over whether they saved the cradle and rings.

the scope is apparently original, and the story back then was that they took the original cradle and scope and moved it to each gun that they were using lol I've never seen these resin parts they talk about though,.. or "dummy"

 

[kpax]

In the PawnStar thread it is being discussed as well.

Around #230 we detailed the details. At best, the scope ( for sure) and "upper rings)" (maybe/likely) are HERO. The rest is a duplicate fabricated and built recently.

In those details I showed the cradle was way off. The rest is right out.

Tony "suggested" the FH was maybe the original but it is not as shown above.

"Maybe" the PS c96 is one of the backup Mausers? Maybe the c96 had a cut bullbarrel and welded mount rods "ready" for use if needed but obviously it was not "dressed" from the art dept with greeblies. No MD or grill. No evidence that it was ever on screen.

I had speculated that maybe it is the Bunker Blaster since it did not appear to have any glued on greeblies. No MD, no grill etc.

 

[kpax]

Good new confirmation about the caliber, 9mm and having a screw in barrel restrictor... as we always suspected.

 

[deadbolt]

I agree, the FH is likely a replica as is the mount. Any MG flash hiders that have surfaced never had ball-endmill knurl cuts towards the back end as far as I know of, although they did vary in depth and length, they were always done with radius cutters. Therefore causing a distinct, different cut.

Thanks a bunch MastahBlastah for posting! I am very surprised at how bleak they detail this 'so-called' screen-used prop.. Other than the scope (and possible rings, which are odd to have in hand without the entirety of the mount).

Especially with so much evidence to the contrary, the Sitting Target mount clearly became the original Hero ANH mount, thus their claim of a single mount and scope being swapped between 3 Mausers is a bit hard to believe with this one considering the mount doesn't match. And the claim is very questionable when so many $$ are at stake (in their favor) for the intention of this Auction, without any proof whatsoever of their statements (as Pat kpax previously mentioned too).

I wouldn't totally negate the possibility of multiple Mausers, since we already know factually (from the great efforts within this thread and the members of the RPF, first off from Pat (kpax) studying the Naked Runner prop and seeing multiples & also confirmed by other members here with The Sweeney and R&H Mauser, that there are at least Two NR Mausers in existence with the same modifications prior to ANH, though different. But doubtful that a second was even needed, due to low amount of screen-time and only a single scene requiring it to fire blanks.
It could be possible that the memory of the prop is mistaken and being confused with the Hero ANH vs. the other live-firing Mausers used in ESB or ROTJ, films which may have had multiples used...but, who knows..

They stated that there was only one scope and mount shared between the 3(?), so it's a bit saddening that many people out there bidding simply have not been made aware of the research that has been accomplished that can prove that's not the Hero prop at all, nor the parts attached other than the scope and possibly the rings.
At best, the Mauser on auction may be the 'other' Naked Runner Mauser that was present in the close-up shots of the film, which doesn't match the ANH Hero, Sweeney or R&H pistol whatsoever...So, buyer beware.


-Carson

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

Here is a collection of all the times this ‘77 SW Hero prop appears on screen while out of its holster. Even some behind the scenes footage for reference..

 

[kpax]

Thanks for compiling that HERO video history C&D !

Not many times... Not much screen time.

ALL the HERO 2813.
Claim of "screen used" can't be substantiated.
Where is Joe Maddalena in all this?

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

Like all these blasters, screen time is a minimum..

Here is a question I can post here with regards to the Hero I’m presently working on. The mystery disk. Not trying to upset the apple cart but I’ve seen it said that the MD is I believe around .96 of inch. Since I’m working on that part now it seems like it’s actually closer to a full inch in its size. Most pictures are angled which I think has thrown the measuring off?

 

[deadbolt]

It's unknown for sure, but I figured it around 24mm, basing on the closest parts to it on the same plane (the Grill) as well as the Mauser. But it's easily between there and 1". 1" looks more correct on an MGC, but as far as the C96, all I was able to get from any photo was 24mm (or 15/16" in standard). But with all of the unknown facts in every aspect of the disk, who knows! haha


-Carson

 

[kpax]

To my eye it is a smidge smaller than the rear milled rectangle height.
Really depends on if you are counting the inner FLAT glued area or adding the small glue ring outside.

The highlights and shadows make it look bigger or smaller at different angles.

Split the difference. That's what I did.

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

Splitting the difference might be the best way to approach it. We are talking about .006in here difference which is already splitting hairs I guess to be fair. Thanks lads!

 

[lonepigeon]

In those details I showed the cradle was way off. The rest is right out.

The whole cradle is original. Upper AND lower.
Easiest wear to match is the gouge on the inside left of the front ring. It's dead on.

 

[kpax]

The whole cradle is original. Upper AND lower.
Easiest wear to match is the gouge on the inside left of the front ring. It's dead on.

View attachment 1602777

Not dead on in my book. That one similar tool mark is insignificant when compared to the multitude of mismatched witness marks IMO. Certainly not enough to sell it as original with all the changes made to simplify the mount by not reproducing the dovetail.

I had said that “maybe” the original cradle was cut off above the supports and reworked to blend the weld. But that work obliterated much of original form. The ends of the tube are tapered on the PS mount. The rest ear flats are a different shape. The support connection is a different shape.

What part of the “cradle- upper and lower” are you referring to?

The upper rings are original.

are you suggesting the entire mount is original or a specific portion of the cradle area. ?

How much? Where is the cut line.?
Just below the lower ears?
Midpoint of the cradle tube?
At the top of the vertical supports?

Where did KCarl cut the mangled parts of the mount off and attach new parts to rebuild the mount?

Even if he documented the rebuild of the mount. The restoration was not done in a way as to retain historical information and value IMO. It is not an accurate representation of the original. And by Tony’s own words, was not intended to be.

Essentially it is a different mount with some of the same metal used in the original at best.

 

[deadbolt]

Actually, now I'm curious about the Scope's Serial..?

We haven't obtained or seen any photos of the Hero's Scope showing the serial on the knob's base so clearly. Possibly retouched/filled with white paint to stand out? If so, why? There's no public reference to prove that number whatsoever..

If so, also pertaining to the entirety of the so-called prop, since we have no known reference material to the True Hero prop Scope that clearly shows that serial, what all has really been done to the 'few' original parts of this prop?

Remember that thought-provoking, ancient paradox about the ship of Theseus that most of us learned of in middle/high school?


-Carson

 

[thd9791]

If something had been refinished, you can’t demand all scratches match as the only way to prove it, they’re not there anymore. New marks may have been made in all this time too. You can only use the deepest cuts or gouges to attempt to match something that’s been sanded.

I happen to agree with lonepigeon fwiw. There’s a long drag mark between the rings on the cradle in both shots too