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. ; )
