Han Solo ANH Blaster on Pawn Stars

ToddsCostumes

Active Member
Thanks Todd - did they mention repairing the scope cradle/mount?

Yes, unfortunately. When they finally found the scope mount at the bottom of a box of spare parts, the bottom portion was mangled beyond repair. Carl saved the upper portion (cradle and rings) and replaced the lower portion.

Tony says he explained all of this to the Pawn Stars guys, but none of it made it into the show. And the price of $1,000,000 was suggested by the Pawn Stars people before they started filming.
 

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Yes, unfortunately. When they finally found the scope mount at the bottom of a box of spare parts, the bottom portion was mangled beyond repair. Carl saved the upper portion (cradle and rings) and replaced the lower portion.

Tony says he explained all of this to the Pawn Stars guys, but none of it made it into the show. And the price of $1,000,000 was suggested by the Pawn Stars people before they started filming.
Wow... Thank you so much Todd. Glad to know I'm not crazy, that looked like the mount. It's sad to know the original will never be in that state again. Lovely to see it was restored, from a museum perspective, the bottom is a decent representation. I wonder if this blaster was a made-for-production but never used... because I would think the bull barrels would have been made in the 70s and the barrels would have been chopped off like your replicas
 

Marv

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
And the crossbar looks to be steel rather than aluminum.

I had compared the thumb screws and think they are larger as well. Have to look again.
So you guys think the original bar was Aluminium? Is that the same for the mount as a whole too?
 

kpax

Sr Member
Thanks for relaying the story but I still tend to doubt it.

How would the steel bottom get mangled? It’s pretty solid there.

The cradle portion is an integral part and the upper portion does not match either.
So what part of the cradle. From the scope nest up? The under side is wrong.
Tooling markers are wrong.
So you guys think the original bar was Aluminium? Is that the same for the mount as a whole too?
No. only the cross bar looks to be aluminum due to the color differences and deep gouges.
 

DarthWilder

Well-Known Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Yes, unfortunately. When they finally found the scope mount at the bottom of a box of spare parts, the bottom portion was mangled beyond repair. Carl saved the upper portion (cradle and rings) and replaced the lower portion.
If true, I wish the owner had kept the cradle in its original state. He could have sold the prop with a replica in place along with the original part in its mangled state. So much useful information about the original cradle design could have been preserved, in addition to the value of the piece.
 

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
So you guys think the original bar was Aluminium? Is that the same for the mount as a whole too?
Yea - I thought this too because of how easily it was scratched and dented. Not the rest of the mount though, I always assumed it was something harder like steel.

I guess we'll wait and see if more info comes to light? I tend to believe it because of the nature of the story, the people it is coming from and though and the multiple matching gouges on the lower cradle. I also feel machining and welding/brazing would explain the missing material underneath.
 

ToddsCostumes

Active Member
If true, I wish the owner had kept the cradle in its original state. He could have sold the prop with a replica in place along with the original part in its mangled state. So much useful information about the original cradle design could have been preserved.
I would have preferred that, but perhaps it will fetch more money as a restoration. Somebody in the auction business might be able to shed some light on that.
 

ToddsCostumes

Active Member
I wonder if this blaster was a made-for-production but never used... because I would think the bull barrels would have been made in the 70s and the barrels would have been chopped off like your replicas
No, this wasn't a "blaster" until 2019 if I recall correctly. After Tony bought Bapty in 2000, he received a lot of inquiries about the Han Solo gun, but they (the principal and back up) had been disassembled after filming, and the parts lost. I understand Bapty is crammed with boxes and boxes of gun parts. Back in 2003, while cleaning out some boxes under his workbench, Carl ran across the scope, and Tony began to wonder if they could put the gun back together. All they really had was 1 C96 Mauser with a chopped barrel and weld marks on the side, and the scope. But it wasn't until 2018 that Carl found the scope bracket "mangled, bent, and rusty" in a box of junk he went though when trying to "retire". It was then that Tony asked him to put it together and make facsimiles of the missing parts. They used the only MG81 flash hider they could find, although they have no idea if it was used on the original.

As for the barrel, I am going to go visit Carl in a few months to find out exactly how they were made. What I know from Tony is that the Mauser barrels were simply chopped off at 3", and the shrouds welded over the stubs. The Mauser they used for the reconstruction was, as I said, the only one remaining with a chopped barrel. The shroud had been ground round and a fake silencer installed over it for another production. That's all I know.
 

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
As for the barrel, I am going to go visit Carl in a few months to find out exactly how they were made. What I know from Tony is that the Mauser barrels were simply chopped off at 3", and the shrouds welded over the stubs. The Mauser they used for the reconstruction was, as I said, the only one remaining with a chopped barrel. The shroud had been ground round and a fake silencer installed over it for another production. That's all I know.
Holy crap, thanks - was it your assumption that this is how they all were made back then too? (As shrouds over a chopped barrel section not a replaced cylinder threaded to the gun)

Also neat to hear there was a back up, period.
 

ToddsCostumes

Active Member
Holy crap, thanks - was it your assumption that this is how they all were made back then too?
No, that was news to me! But it does make sense now. The C-96 Mausers like those don't have threaded barrels (someone correct me if I'm wrong) at least, I can see no evidence on mine that the barrel/barrel extension are not a single piece. It would be possible to set one up with a threaded barrel, but now I'm of the (non-expert) option that it would actually be a lot more work to do that and still have the gun function reliably.
 

kpax

Sr Member
The only way I'd believe Carl used part of the original (lower) mount was if he showed us build photos detailing the process.
I don't see anything on the lower mount that matches the HERO mount... not even the lower screw ears.

The relief cut under the scope cradle is not there. The dovetail mount is wrong. The square hole is the wrong shape. The ends taper differently.
So what could have been saved?

The top rings are likely original like the scope... but that's it to my eye.

The story of a mangled lower mount and he saved the cradle makes no sense. He would have to make a new T mount lower and cut the very top of the cradle off ABOVE the scope tube area leaving 2 sides and weld it on to a new lower he made. Carl dont play dat. Making the entire new lower would take less time. They didn't try to REALLY fake any details and so little is original anyway keeping a shard would make no difference.

Maybe he meant the entire bottom part (cradle) was mangled, (not sure how this would happen. Rust?) and he "replaced" the entire bottom part. That fits the evidence.

IF the story is true about the mangled mount, and the original scope is on this replacement c96 with new FH and new mount and no plastic bits I fear the original HERO is gone.

Again, that FH is too clean and sharp looking to have been a bead blasted rusted vintage FH IMO. And the bullet knurls are wrong.

blaster vs ps mount copy.jpg


The mount on the right is my replica BTW.

Carl’s NEW blaster is nice work though. !
 
Last edited:

kpax

Sr Member
No, that was news to me! But it does make sense now. The C-96 Mausers like those don't have threaded barrels (someone correct me if I'm wrong) at least, I can see no evidence on mine that the barrel/barrel extension are not a single piece. It would be possible to set one up with a threaded barrel, but now I'm of the (non-expert) option that it would actually be a lot more work to do that and still have the gun function reliably.
The C96 barrels are integral to the upper.

The original Naked Runner gun with bull barrel was actually a rifle barrel fitted to the Mauser.

They would cut off the Mauser barrel and thread the rifle barrel to the upper.

The shroud barrel idea was mine when me and Carson started to develop the DEC DL44 kit.

Carl’s versions including the PS version should have a screwed on barrel.

If it’s a shroud,,, he bought a kit! ; )
 

kpax

Sr Member
Todd, if you are going to meet Carl, first be careful what you say. !

He does great work but He’s touchy! ; )

Maybe you can record him telling how the parts were made or found etc.

Would be a great interview!

Was the Hero mount a one off?
Was there a booster under the FH?
What kind of restrict or was in the FH/barrel ?
Silver solder or brazed on mounts.
Which c96 was the original? Sweeney, Naked Runner etc.
WTH was the mystery disk!
Ask about Carson’s lump!
 

kpax

Sr Member
I would have preferred that, but perhaps it will fetch more money as a restoration. Somebody in the auction business might be able to shed some light on that.
I am curious as well.
Collector’s usually prefer original no matter the condition.

The only thing original on the PS blaster is the scope.

Has some value no doubt but how much without the rest of the blaster.? Is not even an accurate replica!

Maybe Carl let the mangled mount? Not that it helps much but I’m sure someone would buy it!
 

Vanitas

Sr Member
The original bull barrel was indeed threaded with the capability to accept a longer rifle barrel, so the original barrel assembly seems like it would have been rock solid. I guess it's possible that it could have been done on a 3" chopped barrel, although I'm not knowledgeable about firearms and have next to no clue how it would work.



And while the Naked Runner C96 is almost certainly a different upper than the one used for the Hero prop (in my opinion at least), both bull barrels seem to have been constructed the same way at least.



EDIT: If there would be any images of the scope mount "mangled, bent and rusty" prior to its restoration then they might be helpful in either matching or ruling out the scope mount cradle as authentic. I can't imagine Bapty wouldn't have documented its original appearance prior to it being so heavily modified, especially if it's claimed as being such a large, integral piece of Solo's original blaster.
 

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