DL-44 ESB Blaster Discussion - Greeblies POST 208

Dann

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I eyeballed the whole thing. Could easily be too thick.
 
Last edited:

3oin

Active Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I think overall this mock up looks too thick BUT I do think the proportions look correct*.

Just needs to be scaled down vertically.

Thanks for all the hard work on this guys :)



*(to me).
 

Dann

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
This may be a little closer.



uploadfromtaptalk1442781404673.jpg

That's .252", and the distribution is more like .150" and .102"
 

Husker75

Well-Known Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I agree. Looks too thick. But I do like everything else about it. Kinda hard to judge without the knurling, but better than just a diagram to visually compare!
 

Boba Debt

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
This may be a little closer.



View attachment 531020

That's .252", and the distribution is more like .150" and .102"

If that is a 60 degree bevel that is only .002 off my current drawing and to me it still looks too thick so I am glad you took the time to do this.


I believe Scotts is .220 thick, and he went with a 50/50 split.

Maybe he can do one at that thickness with a .135 / .085 split






I agree. Looks too thick. But I do like everything else about it. Kinda hard to judge without the knurling, but better than just a diagram to visually compare!

Was this post in reference to the Danns first attempt or second attempt?
 

RedCircle

New Member
I sincerely apologize if I've missed it in this thread (it IS 16 pages long now)... were the original flash hiders based on any military surplus piece or where they custom fabbed for the prop blaster(s)? It's similar in shape to those clamp ons available for the M1 Carbine and M3 Greasegun as well as the muzzle on the German MG34 (also used as the Stormtrooper DLT-19).
 

Husker75

Well-Known Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Sorry about that. My comment about the thickness was in ref to the first pic.
I am torn now. It looks much better in the pic just posted above, but part of me still thinks it could be too thick. Interested to see what Scott thinks!
And thanks Dann for the update pic at the different angle! Helps give us a lot better idea to what we are comparing it to!
 

Dann

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
No problem. Happy to help!

Btw, I think my bevel is closer to 65, maybe even 70 degrees. Like I said, I really just eyeballed until I liked the look. It may not be correct, but it's looking real close.
 

Dann

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Well, it is black in that photo, I sprayed it just before I took that. Must be the reflection of light.

But yeah, it needs some knurls. Thanks!

Looking at the photo comparison, now I feel like mine may be a hair too short!
 

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
After looking at all this - I believe that's as close as we're going to get with the ref provided. It looks A OK to me, I don't think we'll regret it.
 

Dann

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Here it is one more time, with some pitiful scratched-on "knurls", and a little extra threaded rod protruding to better match the real thing.uploadfromtaptalk1442788109334.jpg
 
I'll reiterate here, what my email said. I don’t know about actual dimensions, but from the black n white still, it looks like the flat/knurled proportions are supposed to be 50/50. The middle sample from the photos you sent looks to have the best knurling as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top