Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars
- Thread starter JoeG
- Start date
Great points kpax, i never knew the ST dovetail took the whole mag width and I never knew hans mount thumbscrew ever stuck out
I think theres value in discussing if this was an old second, as it is more about the films production like discussing stunt sabers. Im in full agreement that this is not the hero gun, and theyre lying through their teeth, but whether it is or isnt connected to production is still important. The hero props arent the only valuable ones.
I think theres value in discussing if this was an old second, as it is more about the films production like discussing stunt sabers. Im in full agreement that this is not the hero gun, and theyre lying through their teeth, but whether it is or isnt connected to production is still important. The hero props arent the only valuable ones.
kpax
Sr Member
If it isn’t connected to the production, then it isn’t anything but a vintage Mauser.
It can’t be a 2nd/stunt or back up dl44 prop because it has the original hero scope attached, or at least we believe it is. Therefor logically the best it can be is a fair replica with the original scope in the preproduction state.
To my knowledge they never made a cast resin stunt version of the Han Solo blaster from a new Hope. At least I have never seen one. They made castings of the original HERO blaster for the MerrSonns and the Luke Dagoba blaster with the filled FH and bull barrel but short scope. But never a full version as far as I know.
I have never heard any stories of a second version or stunt versions.
IMO If a second Blaster existed it would have its own parts and be a duplicate of the screen used with all the parts in tact. It certainly would not have the original scope attached. It would have another HW scope. They weren’t that hard to come by in 1976. ; ).
deadbolt
Sr Member
Last edited:
kpax
Sr Member
^^ great minds... ; )
Still amazed and thankful for all the details you proved 3d modeling the prop and discovered including the TomTitt parts! Really solved a bunch of burning nagging questions!
Too bad Karl isn't more talkative... maybe he would remember some other details about the build.
To reiterate logic. If the scope used on this fake is indeed the screen used scope, and it is not, as we all know, the original mount, We must assume that at some point after production Bapty disassembled the gun and removed the scope from the original mount. No other explanation is logical.
As I said before, the upper receiver may have been cracked again at the Carson Lump weld. If the gun was now inoperable and unsafe maybe they destroyed it.
Maybe they saved the bull barrel? Maybe they saved the Lower? Who knows.
We do know it’s not the correct upper or lower on this fake and the FH is not vintage and has the incorrect flutes.
The truth will out... eventually!
Still amazed and thankful for all the details you proved 3d modeling the prop and discovered including the TomTitt parts! Really solved a bunch of burning nagging questions!
Too bad Karl isn't more talkative... maybe he would remember some other details about the build.
To reiterate logic. If the scope used on this fake is indeed the screen used scope, and it is not, as we all know, the original mount, We must assume that at some point after production Bapty disassembled the gun and removed the scope from the original mount. No other explanation is logical.
As I said before, the upper receiver may have been cracked again at the Carson Lump weld. If the gun was now inoperable and unsafe maybe they destroyed it.
Maybe they saved the bull barrel? Maybe they saved the Lower? Who knows.
We do know it’s not the correct upper or lower on this fake and the FH is not vintage and has the incorrect flutes.
The truth will out... eventually!
Last edited:
deadbolt
Sr Member
One observation to note that I don't think I've made public as of yet, the Merr Sonns were cast from the original Mauser before the lower frame was changed of course (as we've all already know, thanks to lonepigeon many years ago)...but there have been theories over the years circulating that there was a casting made from the actual Hero, complete with the correct, replaced lower and original flash hider (which is was), but the theory suggests that it was cast for ANH and 'Before' ESB started filming, then later used as the ESB and ROTJ stunt blasters..
However, although the ESB stunts are indeed cast from the exact Hero ANH blaster, they also have greeblies (clearly present before molding) cast from that mold 'into' the left side, from the Revell Visible V-8 model engine. Right over the area where the Mystery Disk should be..(also, on top of the mystery of the disk's incorporation, aside from this particular discussion, if the disk was permanently present to begin with..it doesn't show in the stunts). These are greeblies that were primarily seen on ESB props, never on an ANH Mauser whatsoever.
Thus suggesting that the ESB/ROTJ stunt blasters were very likely molded and cast sometime after ANH, as Pat (kpax) also noted a few posts back.
The pre-existing, molded-in ESB greeblie evidence to me seems fairly solid considering that there are no Revell V-8 engine parts ever seen present on an ANH Mauser-based blaster thus far, even the Merr Sonns.
P.S...probably should have posted this in the ANH Hero thread instead, for continuity..and somewhat irrelevant reasons..haha =b
-Carson
However, although the ESB stunts are indeed cast from the exact Hero ANH blaster, they also have greeblies (clearly present before molding) cast from that mold 'into' the left side, from the Revell Visible V-8 model engine. Right over the area where the Mystery Disk should be..(also, on top of the mystery of the disk's incorporation, aside from this particular discussion, if the disk was permanently present to begin with..it doesn't show in the stunts). These are greeblies that were primarily seen on ESB props, never on an ANH Mauser whatsoever.
Thus suggesting that the ESB/ROTJ stunt blasters were very likely molded and cast sometime after ANH, as Pat (kpax) also noted a few posts back.
The pre-existing, molded-in ESB greeblie evidence to me seems fairly solid considering that there are no Revell V-8 engine parts ever seen present on an ANH Mauser-based blaster thus far, even the Merr Sonns.
P.S...probably should have posted this in the ANH Hero thread instead, for continuity..and somewhat irrelevant reasons..haha =b
-Carson
Last edited:
kpax
Sr Member
I did a drawing similar to this in the HERO thread. This shows what Carson is talking about.
I believe this prop shows the Mauser from Naked Runner complete tho the SER#s cant be made out in the rear image due to the poor molding/casting. It shows remnants of the "mystery disk" area. A center "ding/dimple" and the top edge of a circular object curiously the same size of the mystery disk.
Just interesting stuff.
I believe this prop shows the Mauser from Naked Runner complete tho the SER#s cant be made out in the rear image due to the poor molding/casting. It shows remnants of the "mystery disk" area. A center "ding/dimple" and the top edge of a circular object curiously the same size of the mystery disk.
Just interesting stuff.
One has a fake barrel tip put in. That's the one either PropStore or Brandon owns?
I've never paired those two photos with owners before so I'm not much help.
I did notice that at the end of the Bespin duel, luke's blaster is missing the scope and bracket (probably cracked off) and there is a big beige S shape on the side, they painted it after putting the scope on. Maybe it was repaired or maybe not..
I've never paired those two photos with owners before so I'm not much help.
I did notice that at the end of the Bespin duel, luke's blaster is missing the scope and bracket (probably cracked off) and there is a big beige S shape on the side, they painted it after putting the scope on. Maybe it was repaired or maybe not..
KramStaar
Sr Member
Of this version there are approx 14 x of these in the Archives, some with scopes and some without.
Only one of them there is not a cast and it wasn't built in the original Mauser body - its an MCG as far as I remember.
Last edited:
scottjua
Master Member
Back on the mount... and whether the hero blaster in SW had the dovetail... there's photo PROOF here. You can match the scratches up to the scratches in the scene just before it when Han comes out of the smuggler's hidey hole on the Falcon. The imperial officer has the cradle and scope removed but you can clearly see the dovetail.. with the same screws and setup as the sitting target dovetail. You can see it better in 4K slow motion but I've got some captures here to show...
So I still think the top rings are the real ones along with the scope... and IF the cradle/upright mount is the original, it's been reconditioned and modified and milled out when Carl made the rest of it up recently. So even if it is (which is DOES show SOME machine and tool marks up high that are familiar), then it's been historically altered too much and basically worthless since it can't be matched anymore.
You can also make out Carson's lump
So I still think the top rings are the real ones along with the scope... and IF the cradle/upright mount is the original, it's been reconditioned and modified and milled out when Carl made the rest of it up recently. So even if it is (which is DOES show SOME machine and tool marks up high that are familiar), then it's been historically altered too much and basically worthless since it can't be matched anymore.
You can also make out Carson's lump
Attachments
-
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.34.47 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.36.48 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.36.52 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.37.00 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.37.17 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.38.19 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.38.22 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.38.28 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.38.45 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.38.49 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.39.05 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.39.12 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.43.46 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.40.30 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.44.59 AM.png -
Screen Shot 2020-05-27 at 9.46.24 AM.png
Oh my god thank you scott
We may never know but it is possible they cut it up for the ROTJ scene or way after. It would explain the same dents and milling marks. Like you said, TOTAL shame if thats what happened.
Those scratches then match the B&W photo we have.
We may never know but it is possible they cut it up for the ROTJ scene or way after. It would explain the same dents and milling marks. Like you said, TOTAL shame if thats what happened.
Those scratches then match the B&W photo we have.
kpax
Sr Member
Great Scott!
Nice screen grabs.
I think this also provides there was only one hero made. Otherwise they would not have had to remove the scope for this shot.
Also shows the crossbar scrapes. Taking the mount off and on caused these patterns.
Nice detective woik!
I do not think it is the original mount retooled. It would have the dovetail. Simpler to make a new dovetail rather than square the pocket and make a square block. No sense.
Also the right vertical support is curved. The original is not.
Karl could have milled or filed MORE material away but could not would not have added material to the inner wal of the vertical to cause the inward bend visible in the images. Easy to compare against the HERO Very different.
Nice screen grabs.
I think this also provides there was only one hero made. Otherwise they would not have had to remove the scope for this shot.
Also shows the crossbar scrapes. Taking the mount off and on caused these patterns.
Nice detective woik!
I do not think it is the original mount retooled. It would have the dovetail. Simpler to make a new dovetail rather than square the pocket and make a square block. No sense.
Also the right vertical support is curved. The original is not.
Karl could have milled or filed MORE material away but could not would not have added material to the inner wal of the vertical to cause the inward bend visible in the images. Easy to compare against the HERO Very different.
Last edited:
I think you are correct about the mount. However, ultimately what it's worth is up to the buyer. I mean...it's not WORTHLESS. Not as much as it could be, that's for sure.
Very possible. Or it may have been rented to another production which required the modification. All of these things were for rent... the scope, the mount, the Mausers... Bapty had a monopoly on firearms rental for the film industry in the UK. Thousands and thousands of films...
scottjua
Master Member
Well... I meant it's worthless to authenticate against what is known to have existed... IF it was the original, but modified. But while some tooling marks seem to match up, a lot of it doesn't...
Yeah we'll never know for sure, as I'm sure even Carl's recollections of what happened and when is mixed up since they did a number of movies at the same time range as the Star Wars films. Usually those who make these things don't give the same credence to them as we do... or if they do usually not until much later... many years after the fact.
I'll stick with my initial opinion... the scope for sure... MAYBE the mount caps... and nothing else
Yeah we'll never know for sure, as I'm sure even Carl's recollections of what happened and when is mixed up since they did a number of movies at the same time range as the Star Wars films. Usually those who make these things don't give the same credence to them as we do... or if they do usually not until much later... many years after the fact.
I'll stick with my initial opinion... the scope for sure... MAYBE the mount caps... and nothing else
deadbolt
Sr Member
Also to note again..the huge square hole milled into the center of the mount (also note that it's offset to the left from dead center) cuts noticeably deep into the underside of the Original Mount's round cradle (as well as the left and right sides on the underside too) which is not present whatsoever on this mount. This counterfeit mount is also clearly a two-part, the joint between the vertical and cradle of the mount, whereas the original was one-piece/solid.
Along with Pat's long proven discoveries years ago, and Scott's discovery of the same blaster being used as an imperial blaster (6 posts back, also posted in the blaster thread a while back) pretty much discounts any reason or need to question if the mount on this 'Forgery' is even the same at all. There simply isn't any reason at all to question that it is or even could be the screen-used mount based on all available reference material, any way any of us look at it..through a mirror, upsidedown, or otherwise it's simply just not the original mount, that's all there really is to it. I honestly don't know why this question is really up for discussion for that matter. It was an obvious fake before the subject even really started, especially to those of us that have spent many years studying the original prop.
I think lonepigeon can easily testify to this subject as well, he studied it years before we even started our project.
-Carson
Along with Pat's long proven discoveries years ago, and Scott's discovery of the same blaster being used as an imperial blaster (6 posts back, also posted in the blaster thread a while back) pretty much discounts any reason or need to question if the mount on this 'Forgery' is even the same at all. There simply isn't any reason at all to question that it is or even could be the screen-used mount based on all available reference material, any way any of us look at it..through a mirror, upsidedown, or otherwise it's simply just not the original mount, that's all there really is to it. I honestly don't know why this question is really up for discussion for that matter. It was an obvious fake before the subject even really started, especially to those of us that have spent many years studying the original prop.
I think lonepigeon can easily testify to this subject as well, he studied it years before we even started our project.
-Carson
Similar threads
