Han Solo ANH Blaster on Pawn Stars

Shinchu

Active Member
I didnt see the pawnstars episode, but the whole thing reminds me of an episode of kevin smiths comic book men. Some guy brought in a "screen used lightsaber" and it was a graflex that was so wrong it had me yelling at the tv.
I would look for the episode but I dont feel like getting all worked up and angry lol
 

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Oh that's brilliant! I see it, and the spot in the middle coming from the thumb nut i hadn't even thought of. very well done

My point earlier was - have you lined up the same info on the color pre-production photo? the part poking out in that photo looks larger than the post photos you beautifully lined up for me!
 

kpax

Sr Member
Oh that's brilliant! I see it, and the spot in the middle coming from the thumb nut i hadn't even thought of. very well done

My point earlier was - have you lined up the same info on the color pre-production photo? the part poking out in that photo looks larger than the post photos you beautifully lined up for me!

Have a look...

I scaled the mount image from Sitting Target and then skewed the dovetail shape to the approximate angle shown in the pre production image.
You can see the slight shadow of the dovetail shape and size on the crossbar once the position is located by the overlay.

blaster crossbar proof copy.jpg
 

ToddsCostumes

Active Member
Call me crazy, but that clear dovetail shape looks smaller than the metal poking out from behind the mount in the photos above. I mean, the "pre-production" shot looks closer to this fake and the B&W I can see the smaller dovetail block.

I agree. Is that the best photo there is to prove that there is a dovetail on the HS Hero blaster? Because I don't think those extremely faint lines make that shape at all. This is what I see:

blaster top hero vs replica thumbscrew and dovetail.jpg
 

kpax

Sr Member
It may look like that but IMO it is only the lighting. I believe better hi res images exist but they are not available on the web.
There would be zero reason to mill off the dovetail and make a square when doing so would weaken the attachment. Firing even blanks puts enormous stress and torque on the heavy scope and mount. Milling a dovetail insert shape is just as easy.

We can not ignore the Sitting Target detail showing the dovetail clearly.

The scrapes and gouges on the aluminum crossbar (as per my previous posts) would not -could not exist if the mount had a squared pocket as you suggest since the mount could simply be removed perpendicular to the crossbar with NO horizontal sliding needed. Hence no gouging.

The mount MUST be slid off the dovetail which causes the gouges...if not careful. Empirical proof IMHO.



thumb_because-there-is-no-way-these-tire-marks-were-made-51299267.png
 
Last edited:

MastahBlastah

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
The scrapes and gouges on the aluminum crossbar (as per my previous posts) would not -could not exist if the mount had a squared pocket as you suggest since the mount could simply be removed perpendicular to the crossbar with NO horizontal sliding needed. Hence no gouging.

The mount MUST be slid off the dovetail which causes the gouges...if not careful. Empirical proof IMHO.

That logic seems to hold up to me!
 

ToddsCostumes

Active Member
The scrapes and gouges on the aluminum crossbar (as per my previous posts) would not -could not exist if the mount had a squared pocket as you suggest

...unless the scrapes were made with the same pocket knife that made the rest of the scrapes on the bar and thumbnuts...
 

Halliwax

Legendary Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Glad to see this thread has some action again. Hopefully the word can get out about this confused fake and save someone a lot of money..

Seriously impressed with all you guys photo analysis
 

deadbolt

Sr Member
This image shows evidence where the dovetail scraped off the paint on the crossbar, sometime during or after the production of SW. Also, the obvious differences in all of the other parts, including the Mauser, make it that much more unlikely for that to be the original mount. Despite the other obvious differences in that particular mount. (No undercut on the cradle at the topside of the 'square' center cutout for a basic example)

Also, Pat (kpax) has already screen-matched both the scope and mount to Sitting Target many years ago in the blaster thread..unfortunately photobucket kinda ruined a lot of our photo proofs and such, but it was already covered that the mount that was previously used in Sitting Target was indeed the one used in Star Wars, which most likely would have had the dovetail present, no evidence whatsoever suggesting otherwise.

So, simply not the original mount in any way you can figure it, period. Nothing matches nearly close enough to think it's the same mount.

hero right.jpg



-Carson
 
Last edited:

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I always figured this was sorted years ago and was not, by any means, questioning such solid research that's already been done. After seeing this blaster with (most likely) the old scope I've kept my mind open. The color photographs from pre-production don't strike me as a slam dunk match for the screen used gun, at least with the time I've spent (which I know is less than you guys).

In fact, the fake is so good that they replicated scratches, dents, machining marks, and even the misaligned threaded holes beneath the rings. That's why I'm giving the mount a second chance - we really don't know what the other back-ups looked like, if they did make any

I just saw that the scope dial and front lens retainer are in the same position from ST to SW (using Todd's trace from a couple posts up)
Sitting_Target-Mauser-6.jpg

Toddstrace.jpg
 

kpax

Sr Member
I agree with Deadbolt. There was a bunch of proof marks showing the ST and ANH mount was the same ONE mount.

That image Carson posted highlights the tilted FH. I'd love to know "exactly" how Karl mounted it and what the deal was with the muzzle restrictor.
Was it to build pressure from the blanks for cycling the action or for muzzle flash/powder restriction?
We know a vintage FH is too big to mount over the bull barrel alone.
I heard one time that they stuffed the back with tin foil to keep it straight and tight but not sure if true.

Anyone volunteer to email Karl? Better yet and visit or phone call we can record! ; ) He is a piece of work...
 

deadbolt

Sr Member
To the untrained eye, sure I can see where it could be confused very easily, but it's not even close when looked at in fine detail. I spent close to two years studying, dimensioning and modeling the real scope-mount used for the ANH Hero from photos (that we all have public access to), and this certainly isn't it..Sorry to say, but I have absolutely no doubts about that, guys..

Counterfeit.png



-Carson
 

kpax

Sr Member
I always figured this was sorted years ago and was not, by any means, questioning such solid research that's already been done. After seeing this blaster with (most likely) the old scope I've kept my mind open. The color photographs from pre-production don't strike me as a slam dunk match for the screen used gun, at least with the time I've spent (which I know is less than you guys).

In fact, the fake is so good that they replicated scratches, dents, machining marks, and even the misaligned threaded holes beneath the rings. That's why I'm giving the mount a second chance - we really don't know what the other back-ups looked like, if they did make any

I just saw that the scope dial and front lens retainer are in the same position from ST to SW (using Todd's trace from a couple posts up)

The pre-production color images are the same Mauser. Same Ser# and witness marks. Of course MORE dings and scratches are in the post due to Fords butter fingers. ; )

The Pawn Stars blaster is not very good at all. The off center screw holes for the scope rings is "normal" i for scope rings.
They didn't even try to make it a good copy. I don't think that whoever put this NEW prop together dis any ral research. I think they had the pre-production pics and made the new pro to match the overall, not knowing exactly how the original "post"production gun ended up looking.

Not the correct Ser.# !!
Not the correct mount... no way no how.
No Mystery disk
Non-vintage -Parkerized, inaccurate FH
No plastic bits OR residue.

Likely the correct scope.

Remember, they are not claiming that this is a secondary DL44. They claim it is THE DL44 HERO that Ford uses. THE screen used blaster. Using the "screen used" scope on this fake indicates that the real Mauser is still missing.
I'd love to know where they got the NEW parts. Are they from a repro kit? That would be funny. Criminal, but funny.

As far as the Pawn Star gun being so good it can fool the experts... and some Here... : ) Putting in accurate scratches and dings is not easy... but not impossible... especially for a million bucks! ; )

I guess I should put my "real" DL44 up for sale...
I'll post again... just because.
Which one is the real HERO blaster.?
And I wasn't even "trying" very hard to fool anyone...

blaster right hero vs replica .JPG
blaster top hero vs replica BampW best_zpso0do8zmb.JPG
 
Last edited:

ToddsCostumes

Active Member
The theory of the scratches on the mounting bar being made by a dovetail and thumbscrew doesn't hold water.
1) the dovetail didn't leave scratches on the ST Mauser. Same dovetail, same screw, same mount... why does't it scrape the Mauser, too? The undamaged side of the Mauser is clearly seen in close-ups, proving the dovetail is tall enough to prevent scraping the mounting surface.
2. The thumbscrew is a set screw - it doesn't reach the mounting bar. There is no hole in the dovetail as seen on film, and when Oliver Reed assembles it, he only has to turn the thumbscrew a few turns to tighten it. The screw is about 1/4" too short to scratch the mounting bar.

Theories are great, and some of them could be 100% true. When a physical prop shows up, (presented by the known owners of the prop) you have to take it seriously, and re-evaluate your theories. I don't think this gun is a forgery made of new parts. I do think they have it assembled with the wrong parts or altered parts. The thing that kills me is that they probably have the right parts sitting back on the shelf somewhere, and the original prop could be reassembled with some help. That's what I would love to see happen.
 

scottjua

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I guess I should put my "real" DL44 up for sale...
I'll post again... just because.
Which one is the real HERO blaster.?
And I wasn't even "trying" very hard to fool anyone...

View attachment 1298742 View attachment 1298743


It sure fooled me in bed on my phone in the middle of the night when you sent those. I was like WTF!... where'd you get... ran to the computer... then "ooohhhh......"

hahaha
 

deadbolt

Sr Member
lol, Pat's Halloween prank was very funny to see as it happened. Fooled a lot of people for quite a while =b. His replica is easily the most accurate out there so far, no doubt!

As far as the dovetail goes, keep in mind that the Mauser M712 in 'Sitting Target' is clean, hardened & blued steel, not easy to scratch at all. The Crossbar on the ANH Hero is simply just a piece of aluminum flat-bar with black spray paint on it (as seen in earlier production photos mostly unscratched). So the theory does seem to hold at least some sort of water considering the scratches on the crossbar are clearly lined up with where the opening edges of the dovetail are on the mount, I've already compared the dimensions years back.

Of course there could always be another explanation, but obvious is just that..obvious. When we hear hoof beats, we should all assume horses first, not zebras.


-Carson
 

kpax

Sr Member
The theory of the scratches on the mounting bar being made by a dovetail and thumbscrew doesn't hold water.
1) the dovetail didn't leave scratches on the ST Mauser. Same dovetail, same screw, same mount... why does't it scrape the Mauser, too? The undamaged side of the Mauser is clearly seen in close-ups, proving the dovetail is tall enough to prevent scraping the mounting surface.
2. The thumbscrew is a set screw - it doesn't reach the mounting bar. There is no hole in the dovetail as seen on film, and when Oliver Reed assembles it, he only has to turn the thumbscrew a few turns to tighten it. The screw is about 1/4" too short to scratch the mounting bar.

Theories are great, and some of them could be 100% true. When a physical prop shows up, (presented by the known owners of the prop) you have to take it seriously, and re-evaluate your theories. I don't think this gun is a forgery made of new parts. I do think they have it assembled with the wrong parts or altered parts. The thing that kills me is that they probably have the right parts sitting back on the shelf somewhere, and the original prop could be reassembled with some help. That's what I would love to see happen.


Thanks for your thoughts Todd.

Oh my theory holds gallons of water. You just have to drink it. ; )

Here is a visual that may help.

First. The ST Mauser, you now agree HAS the same dovetail. Good. ; )

The mount does not scratch the ST Mauser for several reasons.

1) The Sitting Target Mauser is a model M712, which differs from the c96 in many ways including the "raised box" magazine well. See pic

This m712 mag box is the same width as the dovetail and mount suggesting it was made for this gun and this film...otherwise the size is a fantastic coincidence. I could be wrong but I believe this is the first appearance of this mount in film.

Since the mag box is raised off the body and the dovetail extends to the edges the mount can be guided onto the dovetail without contacting the body as it slide over the dovetail... The dovetail acts as a guide.

2) The Mauser body is steel and does not scratch as easily as soft aluminum.

The actual thumbscrew length is unknown. It was never shown being fully removed. Reed turns it twice to tighten then there is a film/cut and he turns it again.

The thumb screw tightens the mount to the dovetail by pulling it up slightly against the angles taking out the slack. When loosened, there is a bit of slop and wobble clearance to allow the mount to slip off but this also allows the mount to tilt and make contact with the soft painted aluminum crossbar as you wiggle it off the dovetail. If there was sufficient slop between the two parts it would allow the mount to drop against the crossbar quite a bit causing the scrapes.

All you really only have to do is try and take the mount off the dovetail without removing the outer thumb nuts. The contact points and scrapes for the outer edge damage/scrapes are very obvious. The scrapes stop at the thumb nut on the right end. I figure they then realized they had to remove the nut and slid it the rest of the way off.

Since we do not know exactly how the original was made or how long the thumbscrew actually was,- it is impossible to know this part 100%. With a little imagination and visualization the center marks can be explained by accidentally screwing the thumbscrew too far in while off the gun, playing with it or screwing it in too far in the wrong location and fumbling with it to get the mount off. With all the damage done to this prop in other areas I don't find this explanation unreasonable.

The dovetail part in ST can be seen to have two end attachments. The center "hole" looks deeper than a typical detant. see image. I am assuming it was a deeper hole for this conversation. When milling parts like this, at that time, they would likely have drilled and tapped 3 thru holes. No blind taps.

I also believe the thumbscrew may have been longer and went deeper into the dovetail for better hold. The Dovetail on the SW blaster crossbar was likely custom made and not the dovetail from ST. The ST dovetail may have been brazed on pins or bolts. I think this likely and would have been too much trouble to remove.

I figure they made a custom dovetail and crossbar and possibly used a different thumbscrew.
Why do I think the thumbscrew was longer than assumed for a "set screw" ? There are several images that seem to show the thumbscrew at different lengths. Sticking out more or less at different times. The thumbscrew only needs to go into the dovetail a little bit to be long enough for this theory to work. See image.

The center crossbar markings would be hard to explain rationally if the screw was not long enough to contact the bar. When putting the mount back on, all that needs to be done... by accident, is to have tightened/lowered the thumbscrew enough to contact the crossbar. These would be odd marks to put in purposely and difficult to do as a weathering effect which typically wears on edges... but I suppose the center marks could have been caused by misalignment of the mount or other mishandling. But the subject of this conversation is really if there was a dovetail on the SW blaster or was it like the newly found fake!?

Even if you want to doubt the cause of the center marks there is no doubt that the other markings were made by the mount sliding over the dovetail. I believe this is a rational and reasonable explanation for the markings. Again, Try it yourself. If the tolerances are the same you will get the same scrapes. I did!

We are all just trying to figure out details and throwing theories around for fun. This is what I settled on until more info comes out.

As for the PS Bapty fake:

1) We do not know that Bapty is the current known owner. Others have claimed to have it tho they have never shown it.

2) If it is not a forgery made with new parts then it is a forgery made with old parts! Still a forgery.

3) If it is assembled with wrong parts or altered parts it is not the HERO prop they are claiming it to be.

Remember, they are not claiming that this is a secondary DL44. They claim it is THE DL44 HERO that Ford uses. THE screen used blaster.

Just because it is a vintage Mauser and the other parts "look old" proves nothing.

Facts:
Not the correct Mauser Ser.# !!
Not the correct mount.
No Mystery disk
Non-vintage - mg81 Flash Hider - Parkerized, inaccurate details.
No plastic bits OR residue.
Likely the correct scope.

The very fact that they are using the "screen used" scope (as we believe) on this fake indicates that the real Mauser is still missing or does not exist in it's entirety any more. Either way it is NOT the screen used blaster therefor they are making a false claim.

The Mauser ser# xxx2813 may have been broken again in production or after ( remembering the bolt channel weld) and they decided to destroy it soon after the film wrapped. It had no real value in 1977. Just another Mauser with glue and crap on it. Ruined!
Keep the scope...

What happened to the screen used mount.?... Who knows. Lost, misplaced. Again, no real value until well after the end of production. No big value. Maybe it broke as well? There was a crack looking thing near one of the top ring screw holes. Maybe it broke and they dumped it?
We may never know.

Since this discussion began with the question of whether or not there was a dovetail mount on the hero blaster or if it had a straight block like the fake Bapty blaster I believe this proves my theory fairly well. Can't make those marks if the mount was lifted perpendicular to the crossbar... Just can't .

This concludes our lesson for today. ; )

blaster dovetail proof copy.jpg
 
Last edited:

kpax

Sr Member
lol, Pat's Halloween prank was very funny to see as it happened. Fooled a lot of people for quite a while =b. His replica is easily the most accurate out there so far, no doubt!

As far as the dovetail goes, keep in mind that the Mauser M712 in 'Sitting Target' is clean, hardened & blued steel, not easy to scratch at all. The Crossbar on the ANH Hero is simply just a piece of aluminum flat-bar with black spray paint on it (as seen in earlier production photos mostly unscratched). So the theory does seem to hold at least some sort of water considering the scratches on the crossbar are clearly lined up with where the opening edges of the dovetail are on the mount, I've already compared the dimensions years back.

Of course there could always be another explanation, but obvious is just that..obvious. When we hear hoof beats, we should all assume horses first, not zebras.


-Carson

I really was going to post some trick photos that would have made a lot of members loose their minds but I didn't think their hearts could take it so I made sure to post semi obvious images with "tells"

Those were the days! The days we could go outside... remember the outdoors?
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
Top