Han Solo ANH Hero Blaster Flash Hider *FOUND*

[wizardofflight]

Thank you, No nothing has been machined yet that I know of. My lathe and mill are still boxed up waiting for my shop to get built.

This is a great thread, an example of the true spirit of this hobby at work.

Great work guys.

Alan

Originally posted by amish@Sep 22 2005, 06:46 PM
Very nice Drawings.  Did anything ever come of it Alan?

[snapback]1081786[/snapback]​

 

[Prop Runner]

Man, and I thought *I* was a detail-Nazi. :lol

I'd love to see how you put it all together - hope you learned a lesson to ALWAYS PHOTO-DOCUMENT YOUR WORK.... :angry

How was CKing's mount different from the MW and MR mounts? I don't know if you've seen this thread, but it addresses a new dovetail feature that's been discovered due to a previously unexamined still photo:

http://www.therpf.com/index.php?...topic=95156&hl=

Can you tell me if this feature is used on CKing's mount? If not, we may still be looking at a new & improved version down the road...

- Gabe

 

[gavidoc]

Doesn't have the dovetail as that detail wasn't known when I made it. However, the ANH lower rear bracket has no negative detail for the dovetail in the front lower bracket. It is flat and the rear of the dovetail sits flush to this. Reason why is that the hole is not completely centered on the lower rear bracket.

The lower rear bracket is reversed between the Pre shots and the Chronicles shots plus the entire lower front bracket is twisted so the scope front is pointing more towards top front.

 

[Prop Runner]

Originally posted by wizardofflight+Sep 22 2005, 08:40 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wizardofflight @ Sep 22 2005, 08:40 PM)</div>

Thank you,  No nothing has been machined yet that I know of.  My lathe and mill are still boxed up waiting for my shop to get built.

This is a great thread, an example of the true spirit of this hobby at work.

Great work guys.

Alan

<!--QuoteBegin-amish

@Sep 22 2005, 06:46 PM
Very nice Drawings.  Did anything ever come of it Alan?

[snapback]1081786[/snapback]​

[snapback]1081850[/snapback]​

[/b]

Alan - saw your blueprint - good start there, mate. We share the same cylinder diameter and sunken band width, and your overall cylinder length is just shy of mine. Your ventilation hole diameter is greater than mine, but not by much, and I'm not sure what's going on with those U-shaped cuts. Were you planning on fabricating the conical section and scallopped cut area from a flat pattern?

- Gabe

 

[wizardofflight]

Thanks. My plan is to lathe it out of solid stock then use a divide plate on the rotary table on the mill to machine out the u shaped knotchs.

I did the drawing in flat pattern so someone could make it without the use of a lathe or a mill.

Alan

Originally posted by Prop Runner+Sep 22 2005, 08:58 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prop Runner @ Sep 22 2005, 08:58 PM)</div>

Originally posted by wizardofflight@Sep 22 2005, 08:40 PM
Thank you,  No nothing has been machined yet that I know of.  My lathe and mill are still boxed up waiting for my shop to get built.

This is a great thread, an example of the true spirit of this hobby at work.

Great work guys.

Alan

<!--QuoteBegin-amish

@Sep 22 2005, 06:46 PM
Very nice Drawings.  Did anything ever come of it Alan?

[snapback]1081786[/snapback]​

[snapback]1081850[/snapback]​

Alan - saw your blueprint - good start there, mate. We share the same cylinder diameter and sunken band width, and your overall cylinder length is just shy of mine. Your ventilation hole diameter is greater than mine, but not by much, and I'm not sure what's going on with those U-shaped cuts. Were you planning on fabricating the conical section and scallopped cut area from a flat pattern?

- Gabe

[snapback]1081868[/snapback]​

[/b]

 

[amish]

IF there was a smiley for me falling over with great anticipation I would surely use it.

Otherwise, this thread makes me quite HAPPY. The idea that one of the most sought after props is going to become even more accurate has gone way beyond my expectation.

I have to really thank Gabe for his excellent 3D rendering and the time he took to do them. I also have to thank each and everyone of you for the time you have all taken to help discover all the details that make this piece even more accurate..

I am also happy to know that we may be one step closer to finding the actual item. It seems that the consensus is that this is a Flash Hider from some weapon and not from a fire extinguisher.

Anyway, I offer each of you a debt of gratitude. In the words of many who have come before me:

I'm IN.

 

[Reaper57]

here is the pic from awhile back.

john :cool

 

[Boba Debt]

The way you have drawn this modified barrel is exactly how I modified my MGC.

I looked in to having the barrel machined but the taper of the barrel and odd shape on the rear part of the upper receiver made it cost prohibitive, so I removed the material by hand with a file.

Machining the chamfers on the Bull Barrel isn't a good idea.

Replica masuers vary up to .020 in diameter at the chamfer and this would make matching the chamfer up with the receiver very difficult.

I would off set the hole in the Bull Barrel and leave the chamfers to each person, after all this is a hobby and filing the chamfers would be a simple but time consuming task that would be very rewarding.

I would be willing to post a tutorial on how to do it.

I don't use cad software so I can not import those type of files. Most machine shops will want to write the CNC code themselves so there is no reason for me to go so high tech with the drawings, I just use corel draw to create standard machinist blueprints.

 

[Prop Runner]

David,

Thanks for confirming my interpretation.

I agree completely regarding the dimensional inconsistency in the width of the flats on the upper receiver area. I have 2 hero and 1 cantina Han blasters built up on Denixes and I got different results on my digital Mitutoyo caliper every time, both between guns and between the flat areas on each upper receiver. My widest upper receiver measures 0.8875" from left to right, and the narrowest one came in at 0.8815". I modeled my bull barrel diameter at 0.850", like the "Mark IV" barrels. I pressume the resulting 0.030+ difference is a function of cost, since the 0.850" diameter could have been standard stock. Am I correct? What have you used in the past?

Regarding the machining of the chamfers, even if they end up oversized with respect to some of the Denix receiver edges, any slight step could be corrected with Bondo. And after epoxying, filing, sanding, priming, and painting, you'd never know the difference.

What would you say about slightly undersizing the bull barrel chamfers so that the customer would at least have 80%-90% of the filing done for him? This way the 45 degree chamfer angles are also assured. After each file or grinder wheel stroke the bull barrel can be test fitted until the edges match up.

Leaving the task of filing the entire chamfers might be rewarding for a skilled hobbyist or metalworker, but considering the machining costs of these parts, it would be a shame for an amateur to ruin one and then have to resculpt the chamfers with Bondo.

My drawings will be parametric to the 3D files, and I'll export them in PDF format so you could view and print them using Acrobat. I could also provide DXF versions in 1:1 scale if you prefer, so you could import it into CorelDraw if you like.

I'll also get quotes from a couple of local machine shops and compare with yours if you feel you'd like to take the lead on this as in times past. I feel it's only appropriate to give you first right of refusal, given your well-known credentials and history with these parts.

Thanks again for all your help.

- Gabe

 

[gavidoc]

Forgot to answer your questions about the actual mount Gabe. Sorry.

As for how it is different from the Worley and the MR...The Worley was centered on the lower cradle. Completely wrong IMO. A couple of members were adamant that the actual mount was centered on the cradle.

I believed that the scope cradle was actually just off the bottom flats of the scope rings which put it evenly spaced between the center line of the lower cradle and the edge of the rings. MR did their's off center but not as much as I did mine.

Despite that photo, I'm still not for certain that what you see is a dovetail and not just a shadow reflection. It is a possiblity though.

 

[kurtyboy]

Might be an idea to buy the 10" x 8" or larger press still from the Sitting Target movie.

 

[Got Maul]

Originally posted by gavidoc@Sep 23 2005, 06:52 AM
Forgot to answer your questions about the actual mount Gabe. Sorry.

As for how it is different from the Worley and the MR...The Worley was centered on the lower cradle. Completely wrong IMO. A couple of members were adamant that the actual mount was centered on the cradle.

I believed that the scope cradle was actually just off the bottom flats of the scope rings which put it evenly spaced between the center line of the lower cradle and the edge of the rings. MR did their's off center but not as much as I did mine.

Despite that photo, I'm still not for certain that what you see is a dovetail and not just a shadow reflection. It is a possiblity though.

[snapback]1082314[/snapback]​

Do you have pics of this mount and cradle system ?? Are there any hopes of getting this produced again if enough interest is generated ?

 

[gavidoc]

This is the only image I have on my work computer.

I might have some more photos of it at home.

Wakal, CKing, or MPire would be the ones you would want to ask. Perhaps Lordsandy as well.

I don't believe I have any of the 3d Cad data anymore. I didn't keep any of that stuff.

The parts consisted of:

real mauser
real scope
BD muzzle
BD center knob
my mount
my grill
my outer knobs

 

[amish]

Beautiful replica Gav.

 

[Got Maul]

I picked up a real scope myself (ala odiwan72)...what a thing of beauty it truly is. I can't wait to compare it this week to an MR scope. Beautiful Gav, I will email Cking and bug him for some pics.

 

[Prop Runner]

Originally posted by gavidoc@Sep 23 2005, 12:52 PM
Forgot to answer your questions about the actual mount Gabe. Sorry.

As for how it is different from the Worley and the MR...The Worley was centered on the lower cradle. Completely wrong IMO. A couple of members were adamant that the actual mount was centered on the cradle.

I believed that the scope cradle was actually just off the bottom flats of the scope rings which put it evenly spaced between the center line of the lower cradle and the edge of the rings. MR did their's off center but not as much as I did mine.

Despite that photo, I'm still not for certain that what you see is a dovetail and not just a shadow reflection. It is a possiblity though.

[snapback]1082314[/snapback]​

Gav,

I'm having a hard time making heads or tails of your verbal description above. When you say "the Worley was centered on the lower cradle," are you refering to the veretical bracket? The Worley is in fact OFF-centered by just over 1/4", less than 1/8" from the flats - just like you described your version:

Not sure where you got your information...

So does the Mark IV vertical bracket location mesh closer with yours or MR's? I wouldn't be surprised if they just copied the Mark IV for lack of any better references. Could someone post a rear shot of the MR bracket like the one above of the Mark IV?

As soon as the suppressor & bull barrel are finalized, I'd like to tackle the scope bracket and cradle.

- Gabe

 

[Treadwell]

This feature alone debunks the sheetmetal theory and fire extinguisher nozzle hypothesis.

The two are not mutually inclusive. If the grooves were machined, that disproves the former but not the latter.

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by Prop Runner@Sep 23 2005, 12:43 PM
Gav,

I'm having a hard time making heads or tails of your verbal description above.  When you say "the Worley was centered on the lower cradle," are you refering to the veretical bracket?  The Worley is in fact OFF-centered by just over 1/4", less than 1/8" from the flats - just like you described your version:

So does the Mark IV vertical bracket location mesh closer with yours or MR's?  I wouldn't be surprised if they just copied the Mark IV for lack of any better references.  Could someone post a rear shot of the MR bracket like the one above of the Mark IV?

- Gabe

[snapback]1082446[/snapback]​

Wow. I wasn't aware that Worley had fixed that on his blaster kit. I can't remember, but I could have sworn that the Mk IV he did with Guy Raz had a centered scope cradle. Did he do a revised 2nd run of blaster kits? In his first run the scope bracket went through the cradle and actually attached to the scope itself.

If that is the new Worley/MR, I don't think they are off center enough.

Here is a modified version of your photo to show you how my mount was done. I did them as 2 parts that were made into one. Thus the scope cradle and lower front bracket were one piece.

When I say evenly spaced, I mean the distance from the edge of the rings to the center of the vertical bracket is equal to the distance from the center of the cradle to the center of the vertical bracket. The Worley appears to have that measurement done to the rear of the vertical bracket, not the center.

 

[amish]

Gav,

So the bracket was attached to the side of the scope cradle instead of being merely off-centered?

 

[gavidoc]

Yes. That is a good way to say it. It was very strong with no fears of breaking.