Han Solo ANH Hero Blaster Flash Hider *FOUND*
- Thread starter amish
- Start date
Durasteel Corporation
Well-Known Member
supposedly.
Boba Debt
Master Member
...........in about 2 hours
Gotcha again :lol
___________________________________________________________
EDIT:
This thread is really cluttered so I am going to start a new thread so we can discuss the real flash hider
I have new information that proves all (I think) other ANH Flash Hider replicas are really inaccurate.
Anyone care to guess what major detail we ALL got wrong?
It will give you something to do while I process the pictures.
Gotcha again :lol
___________________________________________________________
EDIT:
This thread is really cluttered so I am going to start a new thread so we can discuss the real flash hider
I have new information that proves all (I think) other ANH Flash Hider replicas are really inaccurate.
Anyone care to guess what major detail we ALL got wrong?
It will give you something to do while I process the pictures.
You mean something other than the "notch"?
Prop Runner
Sr Member
The internal threads on the inside wall?
- Gabe
Darth Lars
Master Member
There are actually 15 scallops?
Then my flash hider I made from sculpey and plastic bottle caps would be über-accurate. B)
Edit: I saw in the other thread that there are 16 "scallops".. Oh well. At least it is more accurate than most other replicas in one aspect. :lol
Then my flash hider I made from sculpey and plastic bottle caps would be über-accurate. B)
Edit: I saw in the other thread that there are 16 "scallops".. Oh well. At least it is more accurate than most other replicas in one aspect. :lol
Durasteel Corporation
Well-Known Member
So wha?......is it my understanding that no exact repro has emerged for high res photo inspection??? As I see it, two combined parts are still extraplotation....probably better than anything else but still technically an extrapolation if we are to assume the original was either one piece OR a base with the cone attached. The pics and explanations Ive seen seem like we are still dealing with two different parts and not the key prop we seek.
Am I wrong?
Am I wrong?
Boba Debt
Master Member
Yes you are wrong.
Martin is very knowledgeable about these, he owns 3 of guns.
He has confirmed that the a full flash hider with external locking lugs has the same cone as one with internal locking lugs.
He has also confirmed that the Booster with external locking lugs is the same as the booster section of a full flash hider with external locking lugs
Martin is very knowledgeable about these, he owns 3 of guns.
He has confirmed that the a full flash hider with external locking lugs has the same cone as one with internal locking lugs.
He has also confirmed that the Booster with external locking lugs is the same as the booster section of a full flash hider with external locking lugs
Prop Runner
Sr Member
My source for the correct boster-hider just informed me that he will be able to loan me his part in early November. Please stay tuned for updates.
- Gabe
- Gabe
Durasteel Corporation
Well-Known Member
Got proof? Some money behind these projects.....its been a great thread so far but I think some pictorial proof is necessary for all.
Assuming he is right.....a two piece deal is, by its very physical nature going to have some differences than a one piece deal....that is why Im saying its necessary to show some proof or some hard explanation behind an extrapolation vs. specs off the actual, one piece deal.
Nothing personal BD.
Prop Runner
Sr Member
Teaser pics of the booster-flash hider I'll be receiving on loan in a couple of weeks (the other smaller part is explained below):
Here are some collected excerpts from my source about these:
After I receive the part I'll take scaled close-up shots and post them, and hopefully by then would have an idea how much it would cost to replicate. Since these are so rare, I would like to see about having them machined in steel with the correct internal geometry and threading so that real MG81 owners could used them for shooting with the pictured internal booster cone. This would help protect and preserve their original boosters/hiders and the purist collectors among us would probably want one made of steel as well, especially if they're mounting it to a real Mauser.
Regarding finish, the part I will be receiving is painted, but the extreme temperatures of shooting have allowed the paint to sink into the steel and leave it somewhat blued. According to my source, original boosters and flash hiders were either blued or parkerized, given that they were manufactured by several subcontractors, as were other components of the machine gun. He also states that only German companies made the MG81. It was not licensed to or copied by other countries. Looking at the screen-used blaster suppressor, it appears to most likely be parkerized, however I recognize that some would prefer bluing. Parkerizing (sometimes called phosphating) is a method of protecting steel surfaces from corrosion and thus increasing their durability. It is commonly used on weapons as an alternative to bluing, and is considered more effective than bluing. It is ineffective on nonferrous surfaces such as aluminum, and on stainless steel. The word "parkerizing" is a trade name for phosphate deposition coating, usually black in color, that provides good protection against corrosion and abrasion.
If replicas are made of steel rather than aluminum, I would probably not have them finished, but allow the collector to decide which finish he prefers. Steel replicas would be more expensive than aluminum, but the more orders placed, the less significant the difference will be.
Please don't PM or e-mail me about this part or any future replicas yet. David or I will make announcements when the time is right, but feel free to post any questions or comments here in the meantime.
Here are some collected excerpts from my source about these:
Here's a shot of my source's working MG81 with the above booster-suppressor, mounted on an anti-aircraft tripod:
After I receive the part I'll take scaled close-up shots and post them, and hopefully by then would have an idea how much it would cost to replicate. Since these are so rare, I would like to see about having them machined in steel with the correct internal geometry and threading so that real MG81 owners could used them for shooting with the pictured internal booster cone. This would help protect and preserve their original boosters/hiders and the purist collectors among us would probably want one made of steel as well, especially if they're mounting it to a real Mauser.
Regarding finish, the part I will be receiving is painted, but the extreme temperatures of shooting have allowed the paint to sink into the steel and leave it somewhat blued. According to my source, original boosters and flash hiders were either blued or parkerized, given that they were manufactured by several subcontractors, as were other components of the machine gun. He also states that only German companies made the MG81. It was not licensed to or copied by other countries. Looking at the screen-used blaster suppressor, it appears to most likely be parkerized, however I recognize that some would prefer bluing. Parkerizing (sometimes called phosphating) is a method of protecting steel surfaces from corrosion and thus increasing their durability. It is commonly used on weapons as an alternative to bluing, and is considered more effective than bluing. It is ineffective on nonferrous surfaces such as aluminum, and on stainless steel. The word "parkerizing" is a trade name for phosphate deposition coating, usually black in color, that provides good protection against corrosion and abrasion.
If replicas are made of steel rather than aluminum, I would probably not have them finished, but allow the collector to decide which finish he prefers. Steel replicas would be more expensive than aluminum, but the more orders placed, the less significant the difference will be.
Please don't PM or e-mail me about this part or any future replicas yet. David or I will make announcements when the time is right, but feel free to post any questions or comments here in the meantime.
Darth Lars
Master Member
How is the insert ("booster cone") mounted in the muffler? Could this have been used to attach the bull barrel somehow?
I guess you'll know better when it arrives.
I guess you'll know better when it arrives.
Prop Runner
Sr Member
I believe the booster cone is simply inserted before the booster is threaded onto the barrel shroud and it acts as a sort of free-floating gas valve. It's used with both the flash hider boosters and the non-hider boosters, so it's a standard part on the MG81. Given what we know about the bull barrel length, diameter, and how the suppressor was attached, I don't see any reason or room for the booster cone to have been included in the prop, but I could be wrong. In these preproduction photos, the suppressor looks centered:
But in the Chronicles and other pics, It's completely off-center:
The way I see it, if the booster cone was glued to the bull barrel and the suppressor then secured onto it with the screw, it wouldn't have been so off-center
Maybe David can chime in on this too.
Prop Runner
Sr Member
Thanks.Originally posted by Lordsandy@Oct 17 2005, 08:11 PM
Well Done .
[snapback]1098395[/snapback]
Here's an observation I can make even before I have the part:
Notice how the lug notches taper off, and the rounded end is not circular but oval:
That implies that the ball tool that carved out the notches had a spline curve or radiused tool path, as opposed to a linear one:
This is similar to how the notches were cut on the master of the Obi saber grenade before it was investment cast for mass production: the cuts "bottom out" at either end of the grenade using a curved toolpath that takes the tool away from the part.
The oval taper is even more pronounced on this part than on the hero part, which leads me to believe they were either made by different subcontractors or the tool settings changed between one lot and the next.
I would recommend having the oval taper shape somewhere in between. Any thoughts on this?
Serafino
Sr Member
I didn't imagine I'd have something to say in this thread, but now you touch on the Obi, I do.
The 'curved tool path' is simply the end of cut of a large-radius cutting tool. I doubt they even had the ability to create a curved tool path of a ball end mill back then, that's a CNC trick.
This is how grenade experts think the Obi grenades were made, and this has been borne out in the making of some replicas through the use of such a cutter.
The concept regarding the cutter path is discussed here:
http://www.inert-ord.net/rod02h/no3/cutdetails/index.html
If you need the password to get in, it's name 'open', password '1945'. Please note that not all of his conclusions or generalizations are correct, but the ganged cutter idea is dead on as an explanation for how most (but not all.) grenades look.
Grenade experts have also confirmed the fact that original rifle grenades were all made by machine, they are not cast. Fresh originals show crisp machine marks and none of the usual signs of casting.
Prop Runner
Sr Member
Andres, I stand corrected. ( I didn't imagine you would have anything to say here either :lol )
However, since the cutter ROLLS as opposed to MILLS, the curvature of the blade accounts for the same groove tapering off on the ends (imagine the ball-end bit mounted to a wheel as it travels along the outside of the booster cylinder). The CAD demo from the site you cited does bear this out:
In this case, the wheel descends onto the cylinder and THEN starts to roll, as opposed to taking a curved or linear path. That initial descent and pressure is akin to a stamping operation on the ends of the grenade body. Same result, same principle, just different process.
If anything, it goes to show that machining individual ordenance and firearm components even during and before WWI was commonplace. Just imagine the outrageous government and industrial resources that went and still go into military production... And all BEFORE CNC. :confused
- Gabe
( I didn't imagine you would have anything to say here either :lol )However, since the cutter ROLLS as opposed to MILLS, the curvature of the blade accounts for the same groove tapering off on the ends (imagine the ball-end bit mounted to a wheel as it travels along the outside of the booster cylinder). The CAD demo from the site you cited does bear this out:
In this case, the wheel descends onto the cylinder and THEN starts to roll, as opposed to taking a curved or linear path. That initial descent and pressure is akin to a stamping operation on the ends of the grenade body. Same result, same principle, just different process.
If anything, it goes to show that machining individual ordenance and firearm components even during and before WWI was commonplace. Just imagine the outrageous government and industrial resources that went and still go into military production... And all BEFORE CNC. :confused
- Gabe
