Han's ROTJ handcuffs, Jabba palace, found

Dagobah Don

Sr Member
Maybe this is common knowledge, I don't know... but I think the parts for Han's handcuffs in ROTJ are two Fixed Bail Snap Shackles, bound together. Here's one online

https://sep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-140735411364524_2507_67436686

[url]https://www.ebay.com/itm/Stainless-Steel-Fixed-Bail-Snap-Shackle-2/273080872324?epid=4014549341&hash=item3f94e36d84:g:3hUAAOSw1Ndajxvh&vxp=mtr


[/URL]

Problem is, I can't seem to find them in a size big enough, if anyone might have a lead, that'd be great. I don't know if the linkage in the middle looks like anything repurposed, to anyone here.

Cheers! 798a_845x485p.jpg798b_845x485p.jpgCapture.JPG
 
Last edited:
Nice spot! I don't know about finding a large fixed bail snap shackle, but the linkage between them in your first pic is just a pair of d-ring shackles, similar to these:

https://www.amazon.com/Stainless-St...F8&qid=1519342415&sr=1-9&keywords=1/4+shackle

Looks like the pin might be replaced with a smooth head bolt or something similar.


Awesome! Thanks for that. Seems like a simple one, with a little distressing... and of course finding the right size. I do like the not-front-and-center props like this...
 
The sizing is tricky. D-ring shackles are pretty common at some hardware stores (Ace hardware for me for sure, but they tend to have more bits and bobs than Lowes/Home Depot), so it might be worth a trip just to see how they look in person. I'd also check stores that carry marine equipment if the hardware stores didn't have anything.

I'm pretty sure the sizing, like 1/4" or 1/8" or whatever, usually refers to the diameter of the steel used to make the shackle, not the diameter of the void in the middle. So you're definitely not looking for 3/4" shackles, frequently used for off-roading, but more like 1/8". Another term to look for is bow shackle, from my brief searching it looks like you might have more luck finding the smaller sizes with that term.

This definitely counts as a not-front-and-center prop! I doubt I would have ever thought to look into it, but now I'll be thinking about it for sure.
 
This thread is more than 6 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top