Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars

Yep, the scope might be real, the top rings (and I believe the bottom cradle was salvaged and brazed/machined to the new mount) Mount, crossbar, gun, etc. are all a re-build. Even the flash hider is rumored to be the last MG81 they had sitting around, they bead blasted it and used it for the re-build.
 
The nicks look different :

F8A6351B-32E9-45A0-BCFB-DD2121E6C571.jpeg



6F69F6AF-A5AE-426E-9D3D-7B5D105B2527.jpeg
1E2402DA-AD49-45AA-9E67-E4C20B4BCE43.jpeg
 
To me these scratches and the ones that are close to the brass ring seem a pretty good matches. Also there's a serial on the other side that seems to match

1657042134300.png


I'm sure someone skilled enough can reproduce all of this from the pictures, but I don't see why they would bother to fake these if the gun serial does not match.
 
For the C96's appearance as a Star Wars gun, a set of three blank-firing Broomhandles were prepared (in case of breakage or malfunction). Thankfully, original documentation from Star Wars Lead Armorer Carl Schmidt as well as from Tony Watts, who acquired Bapty & Co. in 2000, have provided fantastic insight into the modifications made to create Han Solo's blaster, as well as its provenance.
To begin, the original sights were removed, the barrel shortened, and a muzzle device from a MG-81 was installed on the muzzle. 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.

 
So they are actually going to try and auction this monstrosity?

I wonder who will buy it? ANY research into the piece would show there is NO providence for the actual blaster and only the scope is original.
How much it that worth?

The story is basic background. No details or build photos or original notes. Very problematic.

Maybe they will pull a Salvador Mundi and pump up the value of a fake Davinci and go for 450mil? Using the RI auction to validate the claims and increase the value.

interesting story tho.
 
The auction catalog is up: https://www.rockislandauction.com/d...er-broomhandle-dl44-heavy-blaster-pistol-prop

As is standard practice on a film set, more than one firearm is required for filming. Between Second Unit and stunt double needs, publicity requirements and spares in case of malfunction with blank-firing conversions during filming, extra guns are always necessary and present. Initially two pistols were prepared and as filming progressed a third was created as production requirements increased. There was only ever one genuine scope and mount which was transferred to which ever pistol was in closeup. Dummy scopes and mounts were used when required. All three C96 pistols were taken from Bapty & Co. stock and, being hand crafted, had minor differences and marks, the details of which are now lost in time. Now what became of all this after filming. Due to restrictive firearms laws in the UK, the guns were stripped back to their original condition with added lugs cut off, barrel extensions (blank firing only) or moderators added and refinished for use in future films. The importance of ‘Star Wars’ or these items used in the film not being recognised at the time. Fast forward to 2010, and after constant badgering from myself, Carl Schmidt proudly came to me with the original Hensoldt-Wetzlar ‘Ziel Dialyt 3x’ scope he had found in one of the multitude of Bapty & Co. oddments boxes. Then in 2018 he made my year by discovering the remains of the original scope mount in the bottom of one of his parts chests. Sadly it was only the upper two-thirds of the mount as the base had been cut off sometime in the intervening years. Now my attention was spent in looking at our remaining stock of C96 Mauser pistols. Many had been lost in a government hand-in scheme in 1997 but we still possessed five much worn and abused complete C96 pistols. Four had their original length barrels but one, serial number 299415, had a re-lengthened barrel and faint witness marks on the side which had been linnished and re-coloured. This was undoubtably one of the three original guns used on the 1977 ‘Star Wars’ set and the only one to survive. Now for my own personal satisfaction I asked Carl, although retired, if he was prepared to return to Bapty and rebuild what he had helped create all those years earlier and he agreed but with the proviso that he would only re-assemble the parts we had in the spirit of how they were originally put together. A flash hider was taken from our MG81 spares box, given their rarity feasibly the same one as used in 1977, and he got to work. The base of the scope mount in 1977 was possibly a complicated slide on dovetail but it was decided not to try and replicate that as the exact detail has been forgotten and just create speculation amongst ‘Stars Wars’ enthusiasts. Also the gizmos and small pieces glued on by the Art Department to make the C96 look suitably futuristic have not been replaced, even though replica parts are available, for the sake of purity. Whilst not being in the exact form seen by millions in the film, the end result contains 80% of the last remaining pieces of this iconic prop.
 
Interesting thanks!

Details as we suspected.

80% ????

ehhh. maybe 16% for the scope IMO.

9mm with restrictor screwed in! Great detail. Very much like my build. They did not use a "booster" tho. We created that to help builders center the barrel. As the HERO shows, the FH did not always sit straight!

Maybe... Maybe,? , the PS base c96 is the backup. Likely not screen used and certainly not the HERO. Maybe as I have suggested, it "could" be the Bunker blaster?

Basically a replica with the HERO scope.

Too bad they don't have the original mount, even if it was damaged, It would be a plus.

Sorry to burst their bubble but that FH in NOT the HERO. Many small details but the biggest tell is the bullet knurls and dents as shown.

Nice prop from the era and shop. Curious to see how much and who it goes to...

blaster ps fh not.jpg







blaster assembly restricter.jpg
 
Guys ... the biggest drop in this whole letter is that the actual hero blaster was likely stolen away in a "govt. buyback scheme" ... this means it could ACTUALLY be back in circulation, out there in the world somewhere!!!
 
Guys ... the biggest drop in this whole letter is that the actual hero blaster was likely stolen away in a "govt. buyback scheme" ... this means it could ACTUALLY be back in circulation, out there in the world somewhere!!!

Maybe...?
He said the "guns were stripped back to their original condition. Lugs cut off etc... What remained was the base c96. Not the prop.
IF it was turned in to the gov. They usually destroy them all.

Especially since these were blank fire guns and the HERO was already broken... ( carson's lump) with a welded upper receiver it would be considered unsafe and likely destroyed.

It would be nice if it wasn't. We can always hope...
 
Last edited:
Trying to find the restrictor part, can anyone point it out? This is a great story, thank you for sharing!

Also.. 2/3 of the mount was all that was left, maybe they remade it entirely or maybe they repaired it by remaking the bottom, who knows... I always had a feeling it wasn't completely trashed
 
The ps at the end. Important notice...

He warns that it is blank fire only and has a restrictor plug screwed into the barrel. etc...

He states in the middle of the paragraph...

"The base of the scope mount in 1977 was a possibly a complicated slide on dovetail and it was decided not to try and replicate that as the exact detail has been forgotten." ( guess that should have checked here!)

In previous posts it was noted that Carl said the scope mount was destroyed beyond repair. And not details of the scope mount match.

1658001034408.png
 
They did say the upper 2/3 of the mount had survived, and someone had cut off the bottom at some point after Star Wars. That's wild, I wonder whyyy
 
They did say the upper 2/3 of the mount had survived, and someone had cut off the bottom at some point after Star Wars. That's wild, I wonder whyyy
Who said that?

No one from Bapty that I have heard.
There was speculation in these threads about it but no direct comments from Carl or Bapty.

In this memo Tony says:

"The base of the scope mount in 1977 was a possibly a complicated slide on dovetail and it was decided not to try and replicate that as the exact detail has been forgotten."

In previous posts it was noted that Carl said the scope mount was destroyed beyond repair. And not details of the scope mount match.

IMO none of the details match the original mount. Not even the rings.

The cradle (lower tube) are is not the same as the hero. The cradle and rings are beefy parts of the mount as is the dovetail area. The vertical stems would have been the first to go. So what is left? The upper rings... which IMO don't match either. Even if they did... ok. Scope and upper rings are original? I don't think that adds much to the value.

The actual "blaster" is not there. No greeblies that make it HS blaster prop. Just my opinion.

I would like to hear from Carl about how he actually built the thing. Did he scratch build it? Modify some other mount( /s) But he is a tough cookie to get info out of.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 1598541

Just this comment was of intrigue to me, I like to know what happened to these rare items afterwards
I agree. But the reporting has been inconsistent and second hand in some cases. No follow-up questions.

We discussed and studied the details back around #230.

I forget exactly where I netted out but I think maybe agreed with Scott that the scope and upper rings are HERO but that's all.

The cradle dimensions are off...so even if it was original at some point it has been altered too much.

They used the term "mangled". I imagine if it was at the bottom of a box it likely rusted out and away. How the upper rings survived IDK. IF they are original.

Someone should interview Karl. Offer some cash to tell his story about building the thing. I'd like to hear it.
 

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.
Back
Top