RotJ DL-44 Bunker Blaster (Deleted Scene) Discussion

Ah, of course. That's what I get from spending all my free time on here after spending ~10 hours at work :lol:

Nice eye!
It was staring us in the face for years upon years, and it took the both of us to make the connection, miraculous!

Im so putting that in the list of DL44 blasters thread.
 
Last edited:
I will add the first time we see this scope mount shape is on the resin/fiberglass ESB stunt. This is a cast of the ANH hero body, including the mounting lugs. I believe either an ESB shaped resin bracket was cut up or they just fashioned it from scratch in resin, but the point was to bridge the wide mounting lugs with the small M19 footprint.

When Jedi came around, whoever machined all that Delrin made a copy of the stunt bracket and added a machined rail for the new fake m19 style scope they made. They used a regular scope ring so the machined rail was just a tiny dovetail to fit the bottom mount of the ring.

It’s my understanding that this is another extra of that mount used in this monstrosity haha

On another note I’m pretty sure there are ridges around the back of this flash hider, and a pattern within the cone - let me see if that was private or public reference
 
Could the purpose of the screws on the RotJ rail be to attach the ANH mount's dovetail? That was how the Hero mount must have attached to it, after all.

Perhaps the RotJ bunker blaster was originally "supposed" to be the movie's own Hero prop? Thus explaining why it was used on the poster, at least until the other designs were found to be more practical?

HAN-ROTJ-Scope-Mount-3-2.jpg
 
I don’t think it was intended to be the hero, it would not fit the holster for one, for another it’s ugly, and for a third it’s a blank firing stunt, and would therefore be subject to too much regulation for this international production.
I suspect it had some small part in the ultimate decision to cut the scene from the final film.
 
I guess I more mean that it might have been intended to be the film's "canonical" Hero prop more than anything else, as I certainly don't believe that Bapty would have supplied it for overseas shooting. 100% it would only be available in the UK.
 
I’m leaning more towards thinking it was a bit of a hack job, or bodge (in the UK sense). Since Tom reminded us of the brackets connection to the previous film, it’s quite possible that the Dagobah stunt casting was the only reference available to the art dept. as a guide for constructing the films new hero props during preproduction.

1C86E3D2-1B22-4E6D-B4C5-8A50BF9A500E.png


4564328A-6BE8-4263-BA43-14E6498F6F91.png


We also have these preproduction pics of an MGC DL-44 and an E-11 that were fresh and unweathered.

DF4BD947-05CF-4C83-9DD5-2EA899860D24.jpeg


78DF0AFA-174C-425A-AE40-5A64B2A6D6CA.jpeg


The previous design elements were kept in mind while constructing the MGC based hero props, and subsequently the Stembridge stunt.

I seem to remember that location filming stateside came first, and studio filming in England came later, so the Stembridge & MGCs predate this Bapty prop In production timeline terms.

This Bapty prop is the odd duck of the group, seeing as all the other DL-44s used in ROTJ are much more similar to each other, and to previous production used props.

Bodge definition: (UK) To do a clumsy or inelegant job, usually as a temporary repair; patch up; repair , mend.
 
Last edited:
…makes me feel that this particular prop simply deserves a bit more study and/or replication of it than 'other' certain blaster props...


Yes I'm looking at YOU, RIA blaster.
Great little threat you are starting here V! But why do I feel like you are referencing me here ;)

Lets be fair.. for one with that PS/RIA blaster you can clearly see what is goin on. So when replicating it there isn’t a lot of room for interpretation. One can easily draw it up in CAD if he/she understand perspective and has a good eye for detail... thats pretty much all you need to really accomplish that feat simply because of all the amazing hi res photos and videos that are readily available.

But when it comes to this bizarro prop the unfortunate truth is there isn't any real good reference photos of it at all. I could draw it in a heart beat if there was something to actually draw. Now that I have a BL printer I may eventually do an “interpretation” of this prop but thats all it would be. It wouldn’t take to much either as I’ve already long ago drawn up all the parts that are hypothetically being used for his replica.

The Mauser is a c96. The rail seems to be either the Endor, Stembridge or Dagobah. The mount and scope looks to the ANH Hero. There appears to be zero greeblies on the left side. The bull barrel is extended and that exact length wouldn’t be too hard to figure out (+/_ .200 of inch). The Flash hider could be drawn pretty close to scale as well (minus exact details). But agian what exactly are we looking at here??

These are the best reference pictures we have and they leave way too much to interpretation don‘t you think? It’s all just so subjective at this point..
IMG_2091.jpeg
IMG_2090.jpeg
IMG_2089.jpeg
IMG_2087.jpeg
IMG_2086.jpeg
IMG_2085.jpeg
IMG_2084.jpeg
B32BD123-390A-4BD0-B873-2D591A600F66.jpeg
72E1DF3B-A029-49AF-8BFB-59A24BE2FDF1.jpeg
A6D8122B-332B-416C-BBBC-7C6383F5541B.jpeg
 
The quickest way sometimes is to hunt down the found part, which is usually manufactured and can fill in the blanks or answer all those questions about size and details hahaha I have yet to see any AK style muzzle or anything close. I can at least see lines on the back and maybe texture in the cone
 
Great little threat you are starting here V! But why do I feel like you are referencing me here ;)

I'd like to say it was a little tongue-in-cheek reference, though I do hope it wasn't taken the wrong way! Certainly your replica of the RIA blaster was a fantastic way of putting into perspective just how ubiquitously non-authentic it was to the original Hero prop, and the end results are also just as impressive as anything else you've made! But moreso I just meant to imply that given its non-original status I would hope that replicating it doesn't simply become the norm (outside of the occasional curiosity/completionist urge), as well as my personal opinion that it's not worth the parts it was cobbled together from (sans the scope and mount, of course).

On the other hand, the RotJ Bunker blaster always felt like something of a missing puzzle piece to me, particularly now that we have statements from Karl confirming that they originally had 4 C96s that were "effed up for firing", and teasing out which Mauser is which might now be worth the effort of brainstorming over. Now that we know (or at least strongly suspect) that it is no longer a "reconfigured" Hero C96, I think it opens to door to the much more interesting possibility that the 2813 Mauser might no longer have been available to Bapty at the time of shooting RotJ.

I would also agree that better reference images would almost certainly be needed for any real discussion of the prop's finer details to be had, although unfortunately we just don't have much to work with. Perhaps if some better reference images ever made their way out of the Lucasfilm archives me may one day be able to come to some more concise conclusions, but even now I think there may be a nugget or two that may yet be found.

I have also been thinking of going over the references and making something of my best approximation of a blueprint sketch of what the flash hider should look like. Though not a professional by any means, I'm no stranger to either 3D modelling or graphic design, so I should be able to get us somewhere at least reasonably clear. Perhaps identifying the flash hider/muzzle brake used could be another breakthrough that might happen.

While few would disagree with the idea that it is rather hideous in design (myself included), figuring out WHY it was made the way it was is something that I think some fresh eyes could possibly come to a reasonably logical answer on. We know that Bapty must have started out with something before it went horribly wrong!

Mundi.jpg
 
Vanitas absolutely was not taken in any negative way. I understand the meaning as well. Trust me I don’t put a lot of stock in that PS/RIA blaster myself. Heck it’s almost been a year now since I made it and haven’t yet even put up a YT video showing it off or talking about it. I think that shows how much it resonates with me. Speaking of which I should probably do one at some point if only simply to show what makes it NOT the actual hero.

Here is something for discussion though. Marcus has the Endor style attachment on his rail for his replica. In this pic it looks like it’s actually just the rail itself with no screw placement holder? Looks flat?
IMG_5164.jpeg


I wonder also if this is where the ANH hero mount was distroyed? I wonder if they grinder off the dovetail to get the mount to sit closer to the actual Mauser itself. Otherwise it’s pushing that rail really far off that Mauser.
 
As for distance from the gun body, what does this tell us about the width between mount and upper rail

It does seem closer than I imagined (if the cradle is on the inside of the S bracket)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0396.png
    IMG_0396.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 53
I see what y’all are saying about it being that close. The dovetail section IS rather thick, thicker than that space!
 
I went with thicker spacers to compensate for the size of the ANH mount section…worked for me and the scope overlaps the upper receiver, just like in the reference pic
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3278.jpeg
    IMG_3278.jpeg
    1 MB · Views: 76
  • IMG_3277.jpeg
    IMG_3277.jpeg
    912.4 KB · Views: 69
  • IMG_3279.jpeg
    IMG_3279.jpeg
    1,007.7 KB · Views: 79
With regards to the flashhider...

I wish, they´d have used an actual muzzle, which would have made it somewhat easier for us to identify it.
Anyway...I don´t think, that the "thing" they used here does even have any actual "cooling" holes besides of the one at the front.

Take a look at the following two pics...

The muzzle with direct light hitting it...IF there were any holes, they´d catch/ break the light and we´d see them here.
No holes.jpeg

Now check out the same muzzle with indirect lighting and BAM, there are cooling holes.
BUT they´re somewhat irregular and even differently sized, right!?

holes.jpeg

My theory is, that whatever the prop dept used, the cooling holes were simply PAINTED on, just like on the Hoth DL44. Back then I was -one of- the first, who followed that approach. Prove me wrong with regards to the bunker blaster ;) *lol*

p.s.:
The longer I look at the pics, the more I think that the muzzle was cobbled together from different parts. The front end looks like an old hose coupling. Something like this:

604.jpg
 
Last edited:
It certainly wouldn't surprise me if it was an entirely fabricated piece, although I would be rather surprised if Bapty of all places would resort to drawing on such details like the SW art department... At least for now I'm still assuming that it might have been an existing component of some kind, and am looking into old WW1 parts to see if I can find similar designs.

It's probably a loosing battle, but I might be getting somewhere...

1.jpg
 
If the bunker blaster is blank-firing, could the "flash hider" be a blank-adapter? A lot of firearms need something to increase gas pressure when firing blanks or the weapon won't cycle properly, and a c96 is flinging a lot of mass around. And then possibly it gets modified with a purely decorative part after to try and evoke the MG34 cone shape.

Just an idea, this is well outside my area of expertise but sometime the off-the-wall idea from the amateur is what the experts need.
 
I do have to wonder if it might be some manner of constrictor, if not a couple different pieces threaded together to make a singular "flash hider". Currently I've been studying the footage and am drafting up my best blueprint sketch of what the "flash hider" would roughly look like, though of course it is only my own interpretation.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

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