DL44 Blaster help/advice needed.

NickD73

NickD73

New Member
Well I've bought my first Blaster but now I have it in hand I think I may have over paid so I'm looking for a bit of advice/help if I should return it.

First the sellers description:
"This is made from made from the same vintage parts that where used on the real Hero Prop. The base is not a cheap inaccurate Denix but an original MGC of Japan Broom handle Mauser replica - An amazingly accurate all metal NON-FIRING reproduction of the real deal.

These are long since discontinued and very rare.

The MGC Mausers were used extensively throughout the original (and best) Star Wars trilogy.

Authentic Vintage Weaver Scope rings that are the same ones used in the film.

This replica has been crafted with many of the original prop components, including an MGC Mauser with working trigger, hammer and safety; with accurate modifications, and Weaver scope rings

This is a fantastic example and the best condition Mgc I’ve ever owed or handled."

Now as to my concerns:
The flash hider is resin but I will say he never said anything about that but for the price I thought it would be at least metal, the end piece of the scope is loose & the rivet almost pulls out & the little part by the hammer which I guess is the safety is loose & just flaps about ?

Not sure if I'm just being picky but I did pay £600 for it ?

DSC00796.JPG DSC00797.JPG DSC00798.JPG DSC00799.JPG DSC00800.JPG DSC00801.JPG
 
Hi there :)

So, I'll start off by saying that does look like an MGC and it looks like it was properly milled on the side. The circles are a little large.. but still pretty neat.

The flash hider should be Acetal or Delrin, which is dense plastic that is machine-able. The splatter pattern is close to accurate, I think at least one had a darkened cone during filming

The screws and stuff are normal - but that scope is in rough shape. The flash hider and scope kind of look like blasterfactory.com products - I say this because those scopes have slightly undersized front bits, but his front half is solid metal. I don't recognize the scope though, maybe its a mix of parts? very few people have done the pop-riveted empty cap because of how flimsy it is and the cap itself is unidentified. (coincidentally, I'm in the middle of a run of these scopes, my dining room floor is covered in plastic caps that are close enough :D )

long story short, you're right in that someone screwed up the pop rivet. In order to fix that you'd have to just drill out the rivet (carefully) and pop in a new one, assuming the hole is still the same size.

MGCs are relatively rare, and old enough that the safety levers do get broken and flop around. I wouldn't pay more than 250 pounds for an MGC itself. Everything looks pretty close to the filming prop, as a fellow prop enthusiast I am impressed, though I would have made some different decisions.

The obnoxious wording of the ebay listing would deter me though, and those aren't even weaver scope rings on either the original prop or the replica you have. Weavers were used on Han's gun from the pick-up shot in A New Hope, 2 movies prior. If they're claiming that level of amazing accuracy, you'd figure they wouldn't get their props mixed up.
 
thd9791 said:
Hi there :)

So, I'll start off by saying that does look like an MGC and it looks like it was properly milled on the side. The circles are a little large.. but still pretty neat.

The flash hider should be Acetal or Delrin, which is dense plastic that is machine-able. The splatter pattern is close to accurate, I think at least one had a darkened cone during filming

The screws and stuff are normal - but that scope is in rough shape. The flash hider and scope kind of look like blasterfactory.com products - I say this because those scopes have slightly undersized front bits, but his front half is solid metal. I don't recognize the scope though, maybe its a mix of parts? very few people have done the pop-riveted empty cap because of how flimsy it is and the cap itself is unidentified. (coincidentally, I'm in the middle of a run of these scopes, my dining room floor is covered in plastic caps that are close enough :D )

long story short, you're right in that someone screwed up the pop rivet. In order to fix that you'd have to just drill out the rivet (carefully) and pop in a new one, assuming the hole is still the same size.

MGCs are relatively rare, and old enough that the safety levers do get broken and flop around. I wouldn't pay more than 250 pounds for an MGC itself. Everything looks pretty close to the filming prop, as a fellow prop enthusiast I am impressed, though I would have made some different decisions.

The obnoxious wording of the ebay listing would deter me though, and those aren't even weaver scope rings on either the original prop or the replica you have. Weavers were used on Han's gun from the pick-up shot in A New Hope, 2 movies prior. If they're claiming that level of amazing accuracy, you'd figure they wouldn't get their props mixed up.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that info, would you say £600 was way to much for what it is ?
 
Jumping in here to clarify. MGCs were used in Empire and Jedi, not the original film. One was used in Empire (Han Hoth stunt blaster). The Han and Luke hero blasters in that film were both live-fire Mausers for blanks. There were also resin castings, of course. But we're not talking about those. Han was the only one with a DL-44 in ROTJ. One was a Mauser -- again for blanks, and we know of three MGCs. The flash hider and scope mount make this a replica of the "double scope ring" version of the ROTJ Han DL-44 stunt blaster. The others had less spacing between the flash hiders' grooves, and different scope mounts.

So their listing is misleading in its generality. This is a replica of a specific prop from a specific film. Guessing they wanted to cash in on the mystique of the original in Star Wars, or not wanting to deter people by offering a non-hero version (not all stunts were spray-painted resin castings). You can see it in this thread. All in all, it looks to me like a decent replica. As you can see in that other thread, yours could use a bit more weathering to make it more accurate to the original, but that's up to you.

I would say you overpaid... but probably not by as much* as you might fear, depending on what version of DL-44 you thought you were getting. If you thought you were getting one from Star Wars, it's way off. If your aim was for an ESB version, it's closer, but still wrong. If you wanted an ROTJ blaster specifically, nailed it. This would most likely pass muster for anyone doing an Endor Han costume for the Rebel Legion -- at least, first tier. To pass the higher standards, the weathering would need to be addressed.

(*The base parts wouldn't come to that much, but you're essentially also paying for someone else to do the work of sourcing them and putting them together. So there's that.)
 
I mean... personally yes. Only because for that money I would expect a high attention to detail in the parts like the scope and flash hider and bracket, and a lot of labor.

Some people on here think an MGC on its own is worth that, so take me with a grain of salt. It's easy to take a rare part and do some work on it and claim its worth a mortgage payment, but its very hard to take the time to learn all that there is and the end result doesn't have to be advertised like this.
 
scarf man said:
MGCs were used in all three original films. An MGC Mauser was used in the first film to depict Han’s blaster in the Greedo killing scene.
Click to expand...
I always forget that one. Honestly, because I don't count it, being in a post-production pick-up shot and never in Harrison's or Mark's hands. Plus, I personally think it's hideous. I know there are others out there who swear by it above all others. Takes all types. Conjectural Hero Merr-Sonn Model 44/Power 5 for me. *lol*
 
It's like a real-world version of Monty Python. "What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?" "What do you mean, an African or a European swallow?" Even in a single movie, there are multiple variations of the same damn prop. What color is it? Under natural light or set lights? Was the scene flopped? If the mirrored version is what everyone's familiar with, should that be what gets replicated? How about the piece that obviously fell off? Do we put it where it was supposed to be? Or clean up the glue/paint runs? Fix the unintentional asymmetry? Do weathering that will look good in person versus through a camera? It's fractal. There's no bottom.
 
Those are good points Tom. It‘s just a trend that I’ve been noticing over the last ten or so years. Personally speaking, I get more of a buzz from accuracy than what I consider to be shallow labels like limited, exclusive, vintage, real, original, etc. Accuracy is somewhat subjective, so it’s something I can discern, ruminate about, form an educated opinion about, even argue about.
 
Inquisitor Peregrinus said:
Jumping in here to clarify. MGCs were used in Empire and Jedi, not the original film. One was used in Empire (Han Hoth stunt blaster). The Han and Luke hero blasters in that film were both live-fire Mausers for blanks. There were also resin castings, of course. But we're not talking about those. Han was the only one with a DL-44 in ROTJ. One was a Mauser -- again for blanks, and we know of three MGCs. The flash hider and scope mount make this a replica of the "double scope ring" version of the ROTJ Han DL-44 stunt blaster. The others had less spacing between the flash hiders' grooves, and different scope mounts.

So their listing is misleading in its generality. This is a replica of a specific prop from a specific film. Guessing they wanted to cash in on the mystique of the original in Star Wars, or not wanting to deter people by offering a non-hero version (not all stunts were spray-painted resin castings). You can see it in this thread. All in all, it looks to me like a decent replica. As you can see in that other thread, yours could use a bit more weathering to make it more accurate to the original, but that's up to you.

I would say you overpaid... but probably not by as much* as you might fear, depending on what version of DL-44 you thought you were getting. If you thought you were getting one from Star Wars, it's way off. If your aim was for an ESB version, it's closer, but still wrong. If you wanted an ROTJ blaster specifically, nailed it. This would most likely pass muster for anyone doing an Endor Han costume for the Rebel Legion -- at least, first tier. To pass the higher standards, the weathering would need to be addressed.

(*The base parts wouldn't come to that much, but you're essentially also paying for someone else to do the work of sourcing them and putting them together. So there's that.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for that info its much appreciated (y)

It did say in the listing that this is a ROTJ version that I missed when coping the info he gave ("Up for Auction is a Screen accurate Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi Han Solo BUNKER / Shield Generator Blaster.") so I'm ok with that it was more about whether I had shot myself in foot & paid to much because I don't know enough about blasters at this point.
 
Some things I like actual/vintage/authentic when I can get it and it's not an utterly ridonkulous price. I've got some original dosimeters for my code cylinders, for instance. I love them muchly and they smell like the '60s. But I don't have to do anything to them. They're intact as they are. If I could get original Michell stepper pulleys, I might. But Kenny's are micrometer-accurate reproductions, so I don't need the caché of the original.

Then there's things that would get permanently impacted. I could never bring myself to drill into a vintage Graflex flash handle to rivet on grip strips. Especially when I get get a near-perfect replica for under US$200. I might engage the services of a couple of the talented people on here to convert an original Mauser C96 Wartime Commercial receiver to the "Naked Runner" bull barrel version, as long as it retained its functionality. But I don't need to. I'm happy dumping the time and elbow grease into my Denix, since I have a Mauser C96 "Bolo" to use as reference.

Circling back around to the OP. You could wait and hope the original "double ring" ROTJ DL-44 comes up for auction again, and pay five figures to get it... Or you could get this replica made with many original and remanufactured components for a fraction of the cost and actually have something now that is already "good enough" and -- should one want to or hire someone to -- with a little careful work and studying of references, could be made dead-on to said original.

In this vein, I have, thanks to a member on here, an original "teleGraflex" handle (the early version with the engraved rings and "telegraph key" style trigger switch). To convert it into the barrel of my "Supertooper" Uzi-based blaster rifle, I'd have to pinch the rabbit ears together with pliers and paint it matte black along with the rest of the blaster body. I don't want to do that. I'm getting one of the accurate replica Graflexes out there and using this one as a guide to detail the replica where needed. I do have actual Paterson photographic gear for my Fett stuff, including the stirrer handle that's used here. They're still made, to this day, so that's not remotely an issue. I have the Sec-O-Mat pen holder that houses it. I have precision machined replicas of the Michell parts used on that subassembly and for the muzzle. I have Levi's exacting diagram of the plant-on piece on the right side of the blaster, to laser cut out of aluminum. And I'm upgrading some of the details on that piece from stickers to moving parts, as well as an actual Uzi folding stock in place of the cast-resin copy on the original prop. The Uzi itself is an airsoft replica. Top to bottom, a mix of original, vintage, replica, "close enough", and "better than". Just like this DL-44. :)
 
Not that this is actually relevant to the main discussion, but I believe the "safety lever" is actually a decocking lever. Like an M1911, the C95/C96's action would cock that external hammer, and if you didn't want to shoot again you used that lever to lower the hammer without accidently firing the round in the chamber.

To the best of my (limited) knowledge, the C96 didn't actually have a safety beyond needing to manually cock the hammer. It is a nineteenth century weapon, after all.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

PicasoX
"THE" Han Solo DL44 Blaster - From the Vault
Replies
15
Views
963
joberg
joberg
Kindrun
Help With Modding This Blaster
Replies
4
Views
541
AtomicToybox
AtomicToybox
szkoda1974
My Dl44 journey from replica to real parts.
2
Replies
25
Views
1,366
chubsANDdoggers
chubsANDdoggers
Vanitas
Ultimate Greedo Killer DL-44 Blaster - All Real Parts Build
Replies
3
Views
343
Vanitas
Vanitas
incrediblefruit
A dl44 query
Replies
1
Views
384
incrediblefruit
incrediblefruit
Back
Top