Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars
- Thread starter JoeG
- Start date
wow, thank you...
Look at the different colors of the metal, the rings have a dark sheen, fading to red... and so does part of the cradle. The flat part of the mount is completely gray, looks like different metal. I can even see the remnants of the center circular swoop on the bottom, they may have ground off a lot of material
Look at the different colors of the metal, the rings have a dark sheen, fading to red... and so does part of the cradle. The flat part of the mount is completely gray, looks like different metal. I can even see the remnants of the center circular swoop on the bottom, they may have ground off a lot of material
kpax
Sr Member
Thanks for the info and thought Todd.
I always assumed that when he said the "bottom" of the mount was mangled he meant the dovetail area.
I assume, taking the description at face value that he found the mount in the bottom of an old box etc... that it was sitting there in a damp or wet condition for 40 years and rusted away to the point that it was not salvageable. After a point there is simply not enough metal to repair "easily".
Since the bottom section of the mount is a new fabrication and the upper cradle does not match the HERO the only conclusion is that the mount was made new. Only the upper rings are original IMO.
Tony, to my knowledge, has never said that Karl "restored" the mangled 2/3s. ? This would be a great question to ask Karl directly. Again. If he did rebuild the mount "over" the original... he obliterated all evidence. The proportions and shape is completely different.
Now, had the historical value been truly appreciated, there would have been a real conservation restoration done to preserve as much of the original as possible. I would have cleaned up the mangled areas, straightened etc. Then built up welded material to add metal and reform the mount to original shape. They simply did not realize the significance of preservation.
Tony and Karl never mentioned what became of the original part. If he threw it out or maybe still has it unless it was so far gone it disintegrated.
I'd like to know.
The Barrel info is interesting but confusing.
The rifle barreled (bullbarrel) c96s were already built for Naked Runner and Sweeney prior to SW so I assume when Karl said they already had guns with the barrel cut he meant these. These were not unsoldered after NR and Sweeney but I guess there would be the option. ?
Soldering to the outside would mean the c96 "barrel would need to be turned down to a tube or cone shape that he could match with the shroud accurately... without taking too much material from around the chamber area since these still needed to fire blanks etc.
Karl should really be interviewed for these details!
"I guess a weapon ready to display is worth more than a box of rusty parts? Makes sense, right?"
Not sure about how collectors feel about that. I always hear that leaving it as found is desirable unless there was nothing there?
Would be great if he had the rusted parts too!
Oh gosh, I worked in a museum... unfortunately only 3 years and unfortunately only worked with the less expensive education/interactive collection, but I made friends with the crew upstairs that worked with the real collection and the exhibits crew. I didn't go to school for museum studies, but I did learn a lot about proper conservation and restoration, how they judge what to do given an items condition, even materials to display the item... Yea, I cringe thinking about the way this "blaster" was put together sometimes. I mean, sci-fi history is not the same as taxidermy birds or a clay tablet from 4000 BC but still
Looks like no crosshairs? Unless they're just not visible from this angle?
deadbolt
Sr Member
Thanks teecrooz, you found some great shots of it! There may still be some hope (a new hope, maybe? haha) that the cradle is original-ish and possibly just modified beyond recognition. The marks between the lugs seem a tad too close to the Hero's for them to bother copying, considering their lack of consideration recreating the rest of the prop accurately. There does seem to be a slight bit of the 'under-cut' from the original center square hole of the mount, as thd9791 noticed. But hard to tell confidentely.. It's difficult to go just by the claims of the profiteers selling this thing for the most part.
The crosshairs are likely not visible due to the relief that the scope has when the photo was taken, the whole reticle fades to black if viewing too close or too far away. Which isn't much, usually just within an inch or so tolerance can cause that with rifle scopes.
-Carson
The crosshairs are likely not visible due to the relief that the scope has when the photo was taken, the whole reticle fades to black if viewing too close or too far away. Which isn't much, usually just within an inch or so tolerance can cause that with rifle scopes.
-Carson
kpax
Sr Member
I agree that I'd like to have hope for the cradle part, not that that would make all THAT much difference, especially since it has been changed beyond recognition if it was original.
The two images of the mount are almost identical in angle (not exact) so the comparison is pretty close IMO.
I based the scale on the only consistent area. The upper rings. Size and spacing. They match and I believe they are original.
Forgetting the lower section from the thumbscrew down for a moment there are similarities if you squint.
The general shape is similar.
Tool-marks and "witness" marks could be similar due to the same type milling operations so it is hard to be 100% sure either way.
The PS mount cradle is actually shorter up and down on the ends and tapered rather than straight. This "could be" from filing off rusted material from the original OR simply remade a bit different.
The lower ears:
The RIGHT ear is close to the hero in general shape. The tool gouge to the left is similar but not exact.
The LEFT ear seems wider than the HERO to my eye. Could be lighting but... (wish we had a sharper HERO image.)
There is a "wave" like pattern between the rings on the HERO. Could have been filed off due to rust.
The screw holes are an issue IMO. The PS threads are larger and more defined. Could have been re-tapped due to rust.
Overall the PS mount is taller. The center Square hole is longer.
The verticals on the PS are more abrupt and have a step where it connects to the cradle.
The section below the cradle does not line up with the upper as on the HERO. Could be the angle, but the rings line up perfectly so...
The entire surface is re-worked. It looks nice but if it was the HERO mount it has been altered by the restoration so much it may as well be new.
There should have been photos taken of the mount before and during the restoration which would have provided proof that the original HERO mount was under there.
For my money, IF Tony wanted a million for this prop he should have maintained as much of the original as possible and documented the restoration to confirm. And even tho the HERO mount was "complicated" Duplicating the original form is job one in a restoration. The fact that they decided to NOT duplicate the dovetail mount suggests to me that the rest of it is new as well. The rear shapes have issues as well but "could be" explained if it was reworked and reshaped.
The question is, exactly where could he or would he have cut off the old and added new? What could have been salvaged? Seems to me that if the dovetail was "mangled" the thinner verticals would have been rusted away as well. So at the bottom of the cradle? The "hollow" under the center is not there. There is a gouge, likely from a mill, but no hollow.
Did Karl cut off the cradle, smooth it all by hand and weld on a new lower section and verticals? Maybe. Very hard to tell but it would require a lot of secondary shaping.
If they didn't want to recreate the dovetail area because it was too complicated and too much work... then cutting off areas, cleaning them, making matching parts to weld to and rework to look like ne piece seems like MORE work than just machining a new part.
Karl could confirm all these question.
The two images of the mount are almost identical in angle (not exact) so the comparison is pretty close IMO.
I based the scale on the only consistent area. The upper rings. Size and spacing. They match and I believe they are original.
Forgetting the lower section from the thumbscrew down for a moment there are similarities if you squint.
The general shape is similar.
Tool-marks and "witness" marks could be similar due to the same type milling operations so it is hard to be 100% sure either way.
The PS mount cradle is actually shorter up and down on the ends and tapered rather than straight. This "could be" from filing off rusted material from the original OR simply remade a bit different.
The lower ears:
The RIGHT ear is close to the hero in general shape. The tool gouge to the left is similar but not exact.
The LEFT ear seems wider than the HERO to my eye. Could be lighting but... (wish we had a sharper HERO image.)
There is a "wave" like pattern between the rings on the HERO. Could have been filed off due to rust.
The screw holes are an issue IMO. The PS threads are larger and more defined. Could have been re-tapped due to rust.
Overall the PS mount is taller. The center Square hole is longer.
The verticals on the PS are more abrupt and have a step where it connects to the cradle.
The section below the cradle does not line up with the upper as on the HERO. Could be the angle, but the rings line up perfectly so...
The entire surface is re-worked. It looks nice but if it was the HERO mount it has been altered by the restoration so much it may as well be new.
There should have been photos taken of the mount before and during the restoration which would have provided proof that the original HERO mount was under there.
For my money, IF Tony wanted a million for this prop he should have maintained as much of the original as possible and documented the restoration to confirm. And even tho the HERO mount was "complicated" Duplicating the original form is job one in a restoration. The fact that they decided to NOT duplicate the dovetail mount suggests to me that the rest of it is new as well. The rear shapes have issues as well but "could be" explained if it was reworked and reshaped.
The question is, exactly where could he or would he have cut off the old and added new? What could have been salvaged? Seems to me that if the dovetail was "mangled" the thinner verticals would have been rusted away as well. So at the bottom of the cradle? The "hollow" under the center is not there. There is a gouge, likely from a mill, but no hollow.
Did Karl cut off the cradle, smooth it all by hand and weld on a new lower section and verticals? Maybe. Very hard to tell but it would require a lot of secondary shaping.
If they didn't want to recreate the dovetail area because it was too complicated and too much work... then cutting off areas, cleaning them, making matching parts to weld to and rework to look like ne piece seems like MORE work than just machining a new part.
Karl could confirm all these question.
kpax
Sr Member
Another question I'd like clarification on is "caliber"
Tony in his letter said the PS was 9mm black fire.
Both the HERO and PS have 1000 meter sights which usually go with 7.63 while 500 meter sights go for 9mm. Sights could have been changed but why.
My guess is that the chambers are cut back and shortened for 9mm blanks? May not even need to be shortned for blanks IDK. I wish Karl could tell us. Like .45 acp the case may be held by the extractor. I have never found a case to seat on the edge of the case.
Tony in his letter said the PS was 9mm black fire.
Both the HERO and PS have 1000 meter sights which usually go with 7.63 while 500 meter sights go for 9mm. Sights could have been changed but why.
My guess is that the chambers are cut back and shortened for 9mm blanks? May not even need to be shortned for blanks IDK. I wish Karl could tell us. Like .45 acp the case may be held by the extractor. I have never found a case to seat on the edge of the case.
RodanAZ
Well-Known Member
Straight walled semi-auto handgun cartridges (.45ACP, 9mm, etc.) headspace on the mouth (front) of the casing. At least in live-fire guns. I don't expect it would change for blank firing guns, except those that use a specific, blank-only chambering. The barrel restriction is typically to create enough backpressure (with no projectile) to cycle the action.
kpax
Sr Member
This is generally true... They are "supposed to" seat on the case mouth. Ideally. At least that is the design.
They are straight walled but tapered cases. The 9mm more so than the .45
OK. Here is TOO much information but I have nothing better to do right now! ; )
I have reloaded ten of thousands of 9mm and .45acp for decades now. When I started I made the chamber castings, measured the chamber depth, trimmed cases using micrometers and so on...
After some time I found dropping random empty shells in the chamber to finger feel the level against the barrel shroud was enough.
I also found and was verified by competition reloading journals at the time that the cases are generally held "mostly" by the extractor (on service models) which is why short cases fire fine. I have yet to find a "long" case. May not be as accurate but cycle and feed fine.
When adjusting the extractor, the tension should be enough to hold the case against the breach face snugly but still allow the case to slip under during cycling. Logically, if the case is being held by the extractor and the slide closes the breach wall slams the case forward but can not move more forward than the extractor hook. Ideally this is the same dimension give or take a few thousandth. Custom guns adjust all these things to tighten everything up and achieve tighter tolerances. There is a bit of play. Long cases will not allow the chamber to close. Most cases I have measured over the years are actually short. (compared to ideal) Likely for safety and functionality.
I would actually use slightly oversized 200g or 185g hard cast lead semi wad-cutters and get the best seat depth by loading a dummy case (no primer) with a lead bullet and no crimp. I would feed the case and drop the slide and let the bullet seat naturally. The idea is to get the bullet as close to the lands and grooves as possible.
I then would back it off a smidge (enough to allow consistent feeding) and load up. This method would allow me to split playing cards at 50 feet with my hand built compensated 1911.
Movie blanks don't have sharp edged case mouths to seat on. And probably have a lot of slop built in to function dirty. In reloading for straight wall auto, reloading books suggest no crimp or slightly tapered crimp to maintain the case mouth but the blanks have a huge crimp and rolled shoulders so...
I think all things play a part but the tapered wall and extractor likely play a bigger role than the case mouth. You will find heated debate on the subject no doubt. ; )
Also why a .380 will fire in a 9mm. Wont function or cycle 100% great but will go bang...
Just my experience...
Last edited:
Going off of what Kpax said, I took a second look at the mount. My current belief is that they ground off a LOT of material.... cut the vertical portion out of flat metal stock, and welded/brazed it into place. I see a very obvious joint here of two pieces... maybe the remnants of the center curve.
kpax
Sr Member
Could be.
But look at the rear angle image. The way the uprights have to curve and blend into the cradle round shape.
Those rounded shapes would need to match up to braze.
Even if the verticals were cut straight. Not an easy match.
The surface is so rough. So many spots that look like an area that could have been joined.
Either way. It has been altered so much it just isn’t original anymore.
KARL!
Last edited:
I dunno, this really doesn't bother me that much. I mean, yes, it would have been awesome if Carl had gotten the overall shape more accurate, but I don't understand the need to completely discount this blaster as worthless. I do personally believe that the cradle is original (I do believe that you can see a negative space in thd9791 's image there where the swoop once was, underneath the added uprights and I think it's pretty cool that this thing is based on a very likely Bapty-made, bull-barreled C96 with original scope and substantially original mount. Personally I feel it's likely they've just held off on replicating the dovetail because it's not 100% certain if it was actually there in their eyes (without really delving into the RPF, would they really commit to that theory coming from a bunch of fans?). I also think it's very likely that there are photos of the mount as it was found/before it was restored; it's not that unbelievable to me that they exist and we're just not seeing them. These guys don't give a crap about us! Yes, with the visceral knowledge of this prop that we all have, it's a bit of a let down, but I think it's great that things are starting to come to light, and I would very much love to hold this blaster in my hands! Throw some greeblies on there and this thing would be a real beauty!
It's relatively common for people to "re-sleeve" a C96 to 9mm chambering without swapping the sight leaf (because the sight ramp profile of the upper is different anyway, and would be too difficult to change.)
The Parts of Star Wars
The Han Solo hero blaster from A New Hope is going up for auction from Rock Island Auctions. The scope bracket has been restored. Original scope, cradle, Mauser and flash hider. This is a different...
www.facebook.com
kpax
Sr Member
I’m glad Scott got on them about the Mauser and FH not being original.
They also claim the mount restored. It is not.
I hope Chris is catching up on the truth.
I don’t Facebook so I can’t comment.
I hope someone is not seriously duped.
Knowingly buying a vintage Mauser built by the same guy who built the original in the same manner but not identical to the original and with the original scope and rings. Go for it.
Value in the eye of the beholder.
Did they set a minimum expected price?
They also claim the mount restored. It is not.
I hope Chris is catching up on the truth.
I don’t Facebook so I can’t comment.
I hope someone is not seriously duped.
Knowingly buying a vintage Mauser built by the same guy who built the original in the same manner but not identical to the original and with the original scope and rings. Go for it.
Value in the eye of the beholder.
Did they set a minimum expected price?
Similar threads
