I know that it may be considered crass to directly compare your version to another's product, since you will obviously feel yours is the most accurate, and don't want to disparage another's offering, but I have to ask:
The main difference I note in this saber vs. the one offered by AS is the thickness of the rings. They aren't just a little different. They are obviously different. I don't suppose someone has a pic of both side by side to illustrate this?
BRRogers can you comment on this disparity, what may be causing such a different impression of accuracy, and/or why you are confident of your grenade ring thicknesses?
Well there are quite a lot of *small* differences between Dan’s Hero and ours… we worked together to get our overall dimensions in tune and wound up sharing the internal solutions to make chassis and crystal chamber compatible for FX hilts.
Ultimately the AS is Dan’s interpretation of what he has seen in the course of research over the years, and one should consider that may include his personal preferences when creating solutions for machining. Milling artifact on the pommel, some cube geometry etc.
The grenade IS probably the most different area though as you mentioned: his V cuts are a little steeper in the asymmetry which is characteristic of the castings that we’ve seen.
The disparity is based on continued research on Adams and my end… we personally took a few more months after our initial comparison and wound up arriving at different conclusions which went into our model… so our grenade has the assymetric V cuts but aren’t quite as extreme. Based on specific overlays and image mirroring to get right.
Our pommel has some unique geometry in the profile that we incorporated after examining the newest castings and cross referencing our photos again…
Even with what we are calling the Gen 2, (as mentioned a bit before) new reference became available that galvanized what we decided to go with regarding the grenade and informed ONE adjustment to make sense of a mathematical dispute in the overlays of our gen1 model for that part.
So you mentioned the rings being different and a lot of that has to do with the V cuts… the Math, with what we determined, works out in our photo mirrors and our overlays so we go with it.
We decided to add the emitter nipple face profile after examining (again) the newest clean casting and newest photo reference… Dave arrived at a similar (yet slightly different) solution there. Our conclusion was that it was pronounced enough to include.
So hopefully that’s an objective and helpful explanation of where the dissimilarities are derived from