MR Han Solo EE ANH blaster
- Thread starter yodaman
- Start date
Unless you have actually held both a Denix and a real Mauser, you can never really tell the difference by photos.
The Denix is NOTHING like a real Mauser. All the dimensions are off when compared to the real thing. If you scale parts that were on a real mauser to a denix, the parts will not look right when put on a real mauser.
The Denix is NOTHING like a real Mauser. All the dimensions are off when compared to the real thing. If you scale parts that were on a real mauser to a denix, the parts will not look right when put on a real mauser.
Let me reiterate. Here's Prop Runner's comment:
"And most importantly, the parts were scaled to match the Denix, which is wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. tongue.gif "
Well, how is it wrong? Which parts were effected? How did this effect the parts on the MR blaster?
" The retooled Mauser is dead-on accurate to a real one and so all the parts are scaled correctly to match it. Not since MGC has the C96 been replicated so faithfully."
Again, how are they more accurate?
If memory serves, when I did my own research on both the Hero and the GK blasters, I only came across the one problem with the scaling on the parts. That problem was the lower bracket.
I originally used a real Mauser to scale up all the parts. At one point I mounted the parts and realized that the lower bracket was too short for use on the Denix. That means that the over all length on the Denix is more than the c96 Mauser. However, it was only off by around 1/16". I went back and added that 1/16" more to just the lower bracket. I didn't change any thing to any of the other parts. Why should I?
...and if MR did use the Denix as a basis to scale up the reference drawings, then that was big mistake. In fact, I'm still not sure why MR never asked for our help. After all, we're the original think tank on this blasted thing. Same deal with the ESB blaster. Frankly, I'm insulted. Perhaps it's just like the entertainment business, it's not what you know but who know.
The parts issue aside, I do agree that the Denix is not 100% accurate in comparison to the real Mauser. In fact, what surprises me the most between the two is the fact that the Denix is almost twice the weight of the c96. This isn't helpful if holstered with the costume, especially if you're walking around at a convention for 3 hours. Believe me, I've done it.
Also, I think it's great that MR is now making their own Mauser replicas and scaling them according to the c96 Mauser.
...and by the way, doing my own research on that Hero Cradle recently, I came up with some thing very interesting that every one missed - from Icons to the Mark IV to the MR version. Appearantly, no one paid any attention to that top view in the Chronicles book. That was a big, big mistake. Every one missed the actual width of those rings, which of course effects the cradle. It really does change the look of the entire cradle when comparing it to one of the licensed blasters.
Also, I did my home work throughly on all the different versions of the cradle made thus far and made the discovery that..... surprisingly, Icons did their home work; gentlemen.
They may have screwed up the Hero grill, but they made the best cradle of all of them, and I've got a sneaking suspicion that every one since has taken their measurements from this part. :/
All the measurements are coming up the same.....with one exception, that ring width. :confused
The lesson here - as usual - is to do your own home work, gentleman (cough...MR). That's the only way you'll get it right the first time....that is if you're interested in accuracy.
"And most importantly, the parts were scaled to match the Denix, which is wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. tongue.gif "
Well, how is it wrong? Which parts were effected? How did this effect the parts on the MR blaster?
" The retooled Mauser is dead-on accurate to a real one and so all the parts are scaled correctly to match it. Not since MGC has the C96 been replicated so faithfully."
Again, how are they more accurate?
If memory serves, when I did my own research on both the Hero and the GK blasters, I only came across the one problem with the scaling on the parts. That problem was the lower bracket.
I originally used a real Mauser to scale up all the parts. At one point I mounted the parts and realized that the lower bracket was too short for use on the Denix. That means that the over all length on the Denix is more than the c96 Mauser. However, it was only off by around 1/16". I went back and added that 1/16" more to just the lower bracket. I didn't change any thing to any of the other parts. Why should I?
...and if MR did use the Denix as a basis to scale up the reference drawings, then that was big mistake. In fact, I'm still not sure why MR never asked for our help. After all, we're the original think tank on this blasted thing. Same deal with the ESB blaster. Frankly, I'm insulted. Perhaps it's just like the entertainment business, it's not what you know but who know.
The parts issue aside, I do agree that the Denix is not 100% accurate in comparison to the real Mauser. In fact, what surprises me the most between the two is the fact that the Denix is almost twice the weight of the c96. This isn't helpful if holstered with the costume, especially if you're walking around at a convention for 3 hours. Believe me, I've done it.
Also, I think it's great that MR is now making their own Mauser replicas and scaling them according to the c96 Mauser.
...and by the way, doing my own research on that Hero Cradle recently, I came up with some thing very interesting that every one missed - from Icons to the Mark IV to the MR version. Appearantly, no one paid any attention to that top view in the Chronicles book. That was a big, big mistake. Every one missed the actual width of those rings, which of course effects the cradle. It really does change the look of the entire cradle when comparing it to one of the licensed blasters.
Also, I did my home work throughly on all the different versions of the cradle made thus far and made the discovery that..... surprisingly, Icons did their home work; gentlemen.
They may have screwed up the Hero grill, but they made the best cradle of all of them, and I've got a sneaking suspicion that every one since has taken their measurements from this part. :/
All the measurements are coming up the same.....with one exception, that ring width. :confused
The lesson here - as usual - is to do your own home work, gentleman (cough...MR). That's the only way you'll get it right the first time....that is if you're interested in accuracy.
You did it correctly. Problem is that not only is the lower bracket effected by the differences, but so are the upper brackets as well as the scaling of the scopes. It doesn't matter as much now that the scopes have been identified which means that the scaling can be done accurately to a real scope. When those parts are placed on a Denix, and then compared to the real prop, the parts don't line up correctly. Only way is for them to be scaled to a denix to match the real thing.
To me, it makes sense for MR to do it that way as they were using a denix. That way, it looks the same as the real thing and thus, accurate...to a degree.
So let's hear it. What's your accurate measurement? I might sound annoyed, but stuff like this is freaking annoying to me. If you think you ahve something, post it. Let others analyze it and decide if they think you are correct or not. So what were other ring widths on all the replicas from Icon to MR? I personally don't remember but want to say it should have been .75" from memory (which isn't very good).
Let's see your argument for what it should be.
DuneMuadDib
Sr Member
Gentlemen, the word you want is "affected."
That little gripe aside, how many people aren't going to be able to look past the bad taste left in their mouths by Raz's involvement in this and will end up passing on this piece? Me, I'm not a big enough blaster fan to buy one regardless so it's a moot point. Just morbidly curious.
That little gripe aside, how many people aren't going to be able to look past the bad taste left in their mouths by Raz's involvement in this and will end up passing on this piece? Me, I'm not a big enough blaster fan to buy one regardless so it's a moot point. Just morbidly curious.
Originally posted by DuneMuadDib@Apr 16 2006, 05:47 AM
Gentlemen, the word you want is "affected."
That little gripe aside, how many people aren't going to be able to look past the bad taste left in their mouths by Raz's involvement in this and will end up passing on this piece? Me, I'm not a big enough blaster fan to buy one regardless so it's a moot point. Just morbidly curious.
[snapback]1227267[/snapback]
You are correct. That's what I get for typing that response at midnight.
I got so curious last night that I took out and dusted off my old c96 and a Denix Mauser.
It looks like I made a mistake on the over all length. Measuring from the far left side (there's a small square detail) to the edge of the magazine area, the Denix is about 1/16" shorter than the Mauser.
However, if we measure from the edge of the square, indented area to the edge of where the magazine area begins to slope, that distance is longer on the Denix than on the c96.
That's why I made my bracket longer for use on the Denix (for my GK), compared to the c96.
Interestingly, the over height from top to bottom (magazine area) is actually more in regards to the Denix. From the hammer to the end of the barrel, both guns are the same length.
I think making a general statement about the over all difference between the two, isn't a wise move. However, if I had to make that distinction, I would state that the Denix is larger or thicker than the c96.
It looks like I made a mistake on the over all length. Measuring from the far left side (there's a small square detail) to the edge of the magazine area, the Denix is about 1/16" shorter than the Mauser.
However, if we measure from the edge of the square, indented area to the edge of where the magazine area begins to slope, that distance is longer on the Denix than on the c96.
That's why I made my bracket longer for use on the Denix (for my GK), compared to the c96.
Interestingly, the over height from top to bottom (magazine area) is actually more in regards to the Denix. From the hammer to the end of the barrel, both guns are the same length.
I think making a general statement about the over all difference between the two, isn't a wise move. However, if I had to make that distinction, I would state that the Denix is larger or thicker than the c96.
"Problem is that not only is the lower bracket effected by the differences, but so are the upper brackets as well as the scaling of the scopes."
How? Why? The over all differences between the two Mausers aren't that great. Only small details in measurements between the two are different. I still don't see how this effects over all dimensions on the Hero parts, nor the GK parts.
" It doesn't matter as much now that the scopes have been identified which means that the scaling can be done accurately to a real scope."
Actually, I have yet to see a real H&W that matches the length of the original. Up to now, all have them have been to short.
" When those parts are placed on a Denix, and then compared to the real prop, the parts don't line up correctly. Only way is for them to be scaled to a denix to match the real thing."
You mean the over all dimensions of the props or where they're placed on the Denix? Again, I don't think it should matter. Whether you're moving parts from the Denix to the c96 or back, the over all look of the prop should look fine.
How? Why? The over all differences between the two Mausers aren't that great. Only small details in measurements between the two are different. I still don't see how this effects over all dimensions on the Hero parts, nor the GK parts.
" It doesn't matter as much now that the scopes have been identified which means that the scaling can be done accurately to a real scope."
Actually, I have yet to see a real H&W that matches the length of the original. Up to now, all have them have been to short.
" When those parts are placed on a Denix, and then compared to the real prop, the parts don't line up correctly. Only way is for them to be scaled to a denix to match the real thing."
You mean the over all dimensions of the props or where they're placed on the Denix? Again, I don't think it should matter. Whether you're moving parts from the Denix to the c96 or back, the over all look of the prop should look fine.
"So let's hear it. What's your accurate measurement? I might sound annoyed, but stuff like this is freaking annoying to me. If you think you ahve something, post it. Let others analyze it and decide if they think you are correct or not. So what were other ring widths on all the replicas from Icon to MR? I personally don't remember but want to say it should have been .75" from memory (which isn't very good)."
I could post that information, but what the heck difference would it make? It's going to prove that what I'm saying is true?
My point is that if you want this prop to be accurate, then build it yourself. Do you own homework. Do your own research.
I could post that information, but what the heck difference would it make? It's going to prove that what I'm saying is true?
My point is that if you want this prop to be accurate, then build it yourself. Do you own homework. Do your own research.
lonepigeon
Master Member
Who said they didn't contact anyone regarding the ESB blaster?
There's a good reason I have an Artist Proof of the MR ESB Han blaster in my collection.
Not that I agree with all the idealizations of the details but they did get it pretty darn close - better than fan made versions.
Because no one else has.
...and I've done a ton of research on this blaster.
I just got my han EE today courtesy of the 40% off MR deal.
Its great , i love it.
A shame these were priced as high as before otherwise i would have had one already.
Goes great with the ESB han LE..too bad we wont see the ROTJ version.
Im curious if i will get the luke as im still not sure how different it is from the Han...
Its great , i love it.
A shame these were priced as high as before otherwise i would have had one already.
Goes great with the ESB han LE..too bad we wont see the ROTJ version.
Im curious if i will get the luke as im still not sure how different it is from the Han...
and what would that be?
SinkTube Jedi
Well-Known Member
I am so confused on the accuracy of the Han ESB Blaster, have to dig thru the archive and read up on it...
Last edited:
I thought it was if you bought a Falcon direct from MR, did this change?
Last edited:
yep,since the code 'got out' they allowed any cs member to get one.
Made sense for them since i got one, and would never pay 1000+ for a falcon, but yet i would buy a 400- blaster...side note, does it really make sense for companies to 'restrict' buying items to club members or whatever?
IMHO, hell no, the more you can sell, the better...
Made sense for them since i got one, and would never pay 1000+ for a falcon, but yet i would buy a 400- blaster...side note, does it really make sense for companies to 'restrict' buying items to club members or whatever?
IMHO, hell no, the more you can sell, the better...
Similar threads
