Solo ANH Hero Scope Mount. New Pics near the end

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Corellianexports

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I still say the cradle is centrally mounted to the "O" or "T" mount. :)

My only evidence is the single B&W photo of Ford pointing the blaster at the camera:

 

Prop Runner

Sr Member
Thanks for posting those pics, Jose. They may not represent what we're looking for, but they can certainly help in the process of elimination.

Here's a strategy I'd like to suggest:

We know what the dimensions need to be for the distance between the scope rings, the width of the rings, and the diameter of the scope. Let's designate them A, B, and C. On a modern SKS mount, what are these dimensions?





The configuration is very close to this fan-made replica:



(look familiar, gav? :D )

So let's rule out all mounts where the dimensions A, B, and C DO NOT support a HW-DIALYT3X scope.

Here are the dimensions I have for my MARK IV scope & bracket:

A = 27.0 mm
B = 18.75 mm
C = 22.30 mm

I'm sure these will be off between each buildup, as the cradle and rings were cast in resin.

Please post what you have for your replicas and for a real HW scope and SKS mount, as I don't have either...

Here's a vintage SKS scope for comparison to the two above:



The above photo is courtesy of Moogybaby, who patiently awaits his return from exile in Doc's OT Forum and is dying to contribute to this discussion - the ANH Han blaster is his favorite SW prop and he could make some very valuable contributions... :(

Anyway, look how close the scope rings match the hero rings... If I had a first direction to choose in which to hunt down our elusive scope bracket, it would be among SKS mounts and their variants.

Question to ask: besides the Soviets, Romanians, and Chinese, who else used to manufacture SKS rifles and accessories? N. Korea? Czechloslovakia? Ukraine? Poland? Cuba? The more manufacturers we find, the more likely we'll also find custom scope mounts and variants on the original.

What leaves me scratching my head whenever I look at our hero bracket is this question:

WHY EVEN HAVE A CRADLE? No scope brackets that I've seen have one, just separate rings. The typical vertical ring brackets are extremely robust and never become misaligned. I simply don't see a reason for a cradle...

Anyway, my ruminations...

- Gabe
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Prop Runner

Sr Member
Originally posted by Corellianexports@Sep 30 2005, 05:37 AM
I still say the cradle is centrally mounted to the "O" or "T" mount.  :)

My only evidence is the single B&W photo of Ford pointing the blaster at the camera.
[snapback]1086999[/snapback]​
CE,

The only reason I have to question your interpretation is the description gavidoc gave for his "purist" hero buildup: the scope is tilted toward the muzzle and also vertically.

Thus if you take into account the tilt plus perspective in the B&W front shot, this is what I see:



Having said that, I don't think we should rule out a center-mounted vertical bracket yet - I would love to be proven wrong. :)

- Gabe
 

Prop Runner

Sr Member
Originally posted by Durasteel Corporation@Sep 30 2005, 07:59 AM
just out of curiosity,  would any part of this bracket have been cut down from a larger piece?
[snapback]1087062[/snapback]​
Curiosity is the healthiest part of any research, and your question led me to look over my reference photos again, as it had never occurred to me that the T-bracket may have been modified...

So here's some interesting details that stood out:



I'm almost positive I'm seeing some sort of screw, nut, or pin going INTO the T-bracket underneath the lower front scope ring. Whatever it is, I see at least 2 concentric curves, and possibly a counterbore around a screw head. So could the T-bracket be attached to the lower scope rings from the side as opposed from the bottom? And if we agree that the lower rings have been cut on the side facing the upper receiver, then can we rule out that flats were cut into the bottom arc to accept the T-bracket?

Gavidoc: at what point did we conclude that the mount was a one-piece T-bracket & cradle part? Based only on SKS-type mounts?

I believe we should start looking seriously at scope brackets and mounting hardware that INCORPORATE the T-bracket shape, as opposed to ONLY the T-bracket as we see it on the hero blaster. Drew is right - it could be part of a larger assembly and perhaps not even a scope mount originally. Anything is possible at this stage...

So , :thumbsup or :thumbsdown ? Is this something we've overlooked, or am I seeing things at 2:45 in the morning? :eek

- Gabe
 

gavidoc

Well-Known Member
I've alwasy viewed those cuts as intentional in the original design to make it easier for a quick release locking lever.

I have seen other mounts with a similar design done that way. While rare, I saw a couple scope cradles similar to this at a local gun show a few years ago.

As for looking at SKS mounts, while agreeing that we shouldn't limit our options think about the origin of all the other parts that are found on the ANH blaster and Kenobi sabre as they came from Bapty.

Suppressor: German
Gun: German
Scope: German

While the parts found on the ANH Kenobi are predominately UK in origin.

Emitter: UK
Grenade: UK
Gear: UK (more then likely)
Pommel: UK (not certain if came from Bapty but possiblity)


Just something I"ve noticed.
 

amish

Sr Member
Great work thus far guys. Unfortunately, I am off to work and a filtered internet which does not let me look at guns....lol

Anyway, looking at the Picture you posted about Gabe, it does look like the bracket is mounted in the center, though it could be a trick of the lighting.

I will not rule out anything, when I am searching I look more at the shape of the bracket rather then the scope mounts.

I am also going to expand my search to other areas besides military, though it is likely a military piece given the history of other found parts.

Tom
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Got Maul

Official Licensee
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
damn great discussion. Gabe, that no cut in the second ring brings up a very disconcerting feeling...do you think that ring is inverted ? It doesn't make sense to have the ring mount designed that way. If it is inverted, a chilling conclusion is that the Rings were seperate from the mount to begin with...?

anyhow, I will start focusing efforts to the SKS
 

Brinn 71

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Prop Runner+Sep 30 2005, 05:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Prop Runner @ Sep 30 2005, 05:54 AM)</div>
<!--QuoteBegin-Durasteel Corporation
@Sep 30 2005, 07:59 AM
just out of curiosity,  would any part of this bracket have been cut down from a larger piece?
[snapback]1087062[/snapback]​
Curiosity is the healthiest part of any research, and your question led me to look over my reference photos again, as it had never occurred to me that the T-bracket may have been modified...

So here's some interesting details that stood out:



I'm almost positive I'm seeing some sort of screw, nut, or pin going INTO the T-bracket underneath the lower front scope ring. Whatever it is, I see at least 2 concentric curves, and possibly a counterbore around a screw head. So could the T-bracket be attached to the lower scope rings from the side as opposed from the bottom? And if we agree that the lower rings have been cut on the side facing the upper receiver, then can we rule out that flats were cut into the bottom arc to accept the T-bracket?

Gavidoc: at what point did we conclude that the mount was a one-piece T-bracket & cradle part? Based only on SKS-type mounts?

I believe we should start looking seriously at scope brackets and mounting hardware that INCORPORATE the T-bracket shape, as opposed to ONLY the T-bracket as we see it on the hero blaster. Drew is right - it could be part of a larger assembly and perhaps not even a scope mount originally. Anything is possible at this stage...

So , :thumbsup or :thumbsdown ? Is this something we've overlooked, or am I seeing things at 2:45 in the morning? :eek

- Gabe
[snapback]1087088[/snapback]​
[/b]

Looking at your pics Gabe, I decided to try help with some photoshopping.

Now I do see that there is something under the first scope bracket, but I also noticed that the edge to the side of the bracket seems to have a different, larger width than the back bracket. I added some lines to try and show this. Also, doesn't the top of the first bracket look different than the back, or is it a trick in the photo? Was this bracket cobbled together from a bunch of different scope parts? I'm also wondering if the screw notch added to the back bracket was added by Bapty to attach the top to the bottom of the scope ring, or is it like that as a way to have it mounted to the upper receiver without getting in the way of the rear sight? That may be why the back edge is smaller on the side of the mount?
I also notice the scope rings look identical on the opposite side of the gun. Could this mount have been attached backwards? I donÂ’t have a Mauser or a Denix, but would the scope fit over the gun instead of beside it if mounted in this fashion? I'm just wondering if the differing details from one side to the other are due to a 'quick release locking lever' that is absent here, as Gavidoc mentioned.

Just thinkin....

Brinn 71
 

Got Maul

Official Licensee
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
btw- those real closeups- is it me or do they illustrate the knurling on the adjustment knob as straightcut (versus diamond pattern) - that's how my scope is :)
 

gavidoc

Well-Known Member
Gabe,

Gavidoc: at what point did we conclude that the mount was a one-piece T-bracket & cradle part? Based only on SKS-type mounts?
don't know about anyone else, but from making numerous versions of the darn thing that was the conclusion I came up with.

Version 1: Center mounted

How would the T bracket be mounted to the cradle and not interfere with the scope? Mounting through the center of the lower cradle would result in problems. What type of screws do you use? How is it strong? For strength, you would need a groove down the middle of the lower cradle which leaves less room for screw heads.

Result? Only a one piece design with fillets on both sides of the T bracket would work best.

Version 2: Off center

How is it possible to do an off center mounted t bracket not attached to the cradle? Obviously a problem that was solved by both Worley and MR by mounting the T bracket to the scope, correct? Not possible in the real world. Screws? they would interfere with the inner circumfrence of the cradle without heavy modification which would cause a weakened surface as the wall thickness of the cradle would be thin in those areas. Screw heads would have to be ground down for the scope to fit properly.

Result? Again, only a 1 piece design makes sense with a fillet for strength.

Version 3: Way off center ala Icons

This design in general makes absolutely no sense as the T bracket would have to be mounted through the inner scope ring screw holes. Quite obviously not hte case based on photographic evidence.


That's a purty replica mount. Where did you get it? ;)



I only think a total of 4 were made.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Prop Runner

Sr Member
Originally posted by Got Maul@Sep 30 2005, 12:36 PM
damn great discussion.  Gabe, that no cut in the second ring brings up a very disconcerting feeling...do you think that ring is inverted ? It doesn't make sense to have the ring mount designed that way. If it is inverted, a chilling conclusion is that the Rings were seperate from the mount to begin with...?

anyhow, I will start focusing efforts to the SKS
[snapback]1087124[/snapback]​
Jose,

When I say "lower ring," keep in mind that both front and back lower rings are fused to the cradle, so I can't see how they can be inverted - unless I misunderstood your meaning. For whatever reason, that could simply be how the mount system was designed: 3 screws on top, one on bottom... Or, as has been suggested, the rings could have come from different mounts with different configurations. I tend to doubt that, however, given how the distinct shape of the upper rings does not resemble anything out there except for maybe the SKS mount.

Brinn - regarding your observations, here's how I see the cuts in the lower cradle flanges (I really should stop calling them lower rings, lol):



It's obvious to all that on the Han blaster, there's plenty of distance between the rings and the upper receiver, however on the "Sitting Target" prop, the mount was much closer to the gun, since there was no horizontal bar in between. And if we assume it was closer, then yeah, it makes perfect sense that the rear cradle flange would have a deeper cut than the front flange (remember - it's mounted on the left hand side), in order to clear the sliding elevation sight.

I therefore have to conclude that the mount was cut by Bapty when assembled to the "sitting Target" Mauser, and that it was never designed to be used with a Broomhandle Mauser pistol.

- Gabe

P.S. I just noticed that on my GK blaster, Denix put on the elevation sight with the release button facing the right hand side and on my MARK IV blaster, it's facing the left hand side:



Does anybody else have Denixes with sights assembled both ways? My first thought was that it's a factory error on the MARK IV Denix, but a Google search on C-96 Broomhandle Mausers demonstrates that sometimes the sight release botton does face the left hand side:



although admittedly, this particular one might have been reassembled incorrectly - all the other photos and exploded view diagrams show the release button facing the right...
 

spinner 44

Well-Known Member
To Gave,

I wanted to post this pic from the Chronicles. Its a full blow up I did looking for details. I noticed this one thing. All the screws holding the cradle suppors look to me likethey are NOT allen type head, but button head ones with a single engraved line, like they most commom screws.

All the representations of the blaster i've seen to this moment show allen head screws inserted in the mounts and too thin in diameter



Close up


Crappy pointing of screw head


Also, I got this one pic saved from a earlier post. The cradle base has a hollow on the down part. I remember very clearly this from the STAR WARS dvd campaing, they had this full size Hans in cardboard and the hole was VERY clear. maybe someone can find better resolution pics of this one.




Hope this helps. What a week....
 

Prop Runner

Sr Member
Spinner, I agree with you 100% regarding the screws - I really can't imagine why everybody's always used socket head cap screws (what you call Allen screws - Allen refers to the L-shaped wrench, but yeah, it's associated with the hex-socket screws :) ) I wonder if it's because Icons used these screws on their artist proofs, and everybody figured they must be the right ones...

In fact, you can't really make out ANY screws on either side of the pre-production blaster:



I also can't see any hole or indentation on the bottom of the cradle - you're the first to mention it, so let's see if we can dig up some good DVD captures. :)

- Gabe
 

gavidoc

Well-Known Member
Spinner,

I agree with you on the screws. They aren't socket head screws and they shouldn't be.

Of course, that's why I used 5/40 fillister head standard screws on mine which is what are used on real scope rings. ;)

Use the correct hardware, and it makes other details line up for more accuracy.

Those photos that show the heads also is the same photo that shows how the scope is tilted towards the muzzle as well as tilted up.

Gabe,

The Denix sight adjustment is put on in the incorrect orientation at the factory. For accuaracy reasons, it must be rotated 180 degrees ala Worley's version.
 

Durasteel Corporation

Well-Known Member
Hey guys

I went to the MG81,34 etc shop today. I brought the Chronicles and the guys were pretty receptive to "relative geekiness" after I told them I did a lot of museum restoration and reproduction work which broke the ice a lot.

anyway, I showed them the layout in the Chony with the solo blaster. Two of them very quickly said, 'oh thats Russian' ...on guys said 'well maybe chech'........and they listed about 5 guns faster that I could remember them.

I dont know if that helps or seems incorrect *we all know to take expert knowledge in stride* so either way, hope it helps. :)

Drew
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top