Solo ANH Hero Scope Mount. New Pics near the end

[Got Maul]

I agree with you drew. So far I think what they are referring to is the same as what Gabe has been mentioning the whole time....SKS. SKS used to be manufactured in Russia, then right next to and for the Czech soldiers, until it finally moved to China which is the current place of production. At least your sources do know what they are talking about since the designs changed little between Russia and Czech.

The UNFORTUNATE thing is, I have been in contact with one of their sources (SKS) from china, and not only did the current SKS production person not know what this piece was, but the technical staff didn't either.

Perhaps they weren't well versed in the history...no less, I keep looking

**edit:typo**.

 

[Prop Runner]

So what are those 5 guns, Drew? Spit it out, man. Did they have any books or photos of these rifles (with scopes) that could help?

Gav: actually, it's the MARK IV that seems to have the elevation sight incorrectly oriented (take a look again). If you check out at any Broomhandle photo on Google, the button faces right (except for the one I posted above). Here's an exploded view of a Mauser - are you telling me it's wrong, or did you make a mistake in your post?

- Gabe

 

[Durasteel Corporation]

So what are those 5 guns, Drew? Spit it out, man. Did they have any books or photos of these rifles (with scopes) that could help?

I would if I remembered.....I was out of my league. Ill be heading back next week.

Give me something solid to ask..so I dont waste their time bumbling for the right words.

 

[Prop Runner]

Originally posted by gavidoc@Sep 30 2005, 11:57 AM
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.

[snapback]1087106[/snapback]​

Gav: recognizing and following patterns is generally a good thing, but sometimes they keep us blinded to exceptions and new opportunities. We gotta think outside the box on this one, dude.

For instance - yeah, Han's hero ANH blaster and greeblies are German (except for the model engine grill), but the Sterling is British and used a German Hengstler counter and an American M-38 scope, and the ESB Han & Luke blasters also shared German and US parts, so unfortunately your pattern of props built up with "country-specific" parts breaks down in the face of other examples. Obviously Bapty had access to thousands of firearms from all over the world. Leia's gun is a Soviet .22 caliber target pistol, so it's not a stretch to imagine they had Soviet, Czech, and other Warsaw pact weapons.

What I'm saying is that those who were convinced the suppressor was a fire extinguisher nozzle pretty much suppressed and extinguished (pardon the puns) any serious new research for years, and those of us (including myself) who doubted the theory were afraid of being ridiculed by the "old guard" if we dared try to cast doubt or explore new directions. In the case of the scope mount, the SKS rings SCREAM similarities, so we have to think of the hero scope as a duck, and go look for other ducks. If we don't find any ducks after a good, long, hard search, then we revisit the pattern.

Quack.

- Gabe

 

[Prop Runner]

Originally posted by Durasteel Corporation@Oct 1 2005, 06:07 AM
Give me something solid to ask..so I dont waste their time bumbling for the right words. 

[snapback]1087722[/snapback]​

1. "What-were-those-5-guns-you-mentioned-last time?"

2. "Do-you-have-any-books-or-pictures-showing-these-guns-with-scopes?"

3. "Can-you-refer-me-to-someone-who-may-have-more-information?"



- Gabe

 

[Got Maul]

question 1a : Would you mind if I write this all down while we talk ?

 

[Durasteel Corporation]

question 1a : Would you mind if I write this all down while we talk ?

Im wired, please dont pat me down. :lol (do you mind if I conduct 'round the clock surveilance)

 

[gavidoc]

Originally posted by Prop Runner@Oct 1 2005, 01:29 AM

Gav: actually, it's the MARK IV that seems to have the elevation sight incorrectly oriented (take a look again).  If you check out at any Broomhandle photo on Google, the button faces right (except for the one I posted above).  Here's an exploded view of a Mauser - are you telling me it's wrong, or did you make a mistake in your post?

- Gabe

[snapback]1087708[/snapback]​

Made a mistake. Should have said like the Cantina.

The Denix adjustments are put on incorrectly though (or they were a few years ago). Don't know if they fixed that or not.

 

[gavidoc]

I agree that other props were not put togehter with country specific parts, I'm just saying that those two props seem to be.

We don't know how the Kenobi got to Lucasfilm but it is obvious that the Mauser Solo was sent from Bapty without the grill on it. The gun itself was a German specific weapon (sans the mount) from what we can tell.

I was under the impression anyway that the Vader and the Skywalker sabres were not made by Bapty and were put together by the Lucas crew which would include the clamp on the Kenobi. So if we go by that, then the ANH Kenobi also arrived from Bapty with all country specific parts.

Leias blaster is a Russian sporting blaster, but the grill thingies was added after the gun was sent from Bapty just like on the Solo Blaster. The ANH trooper blaster was a British gun. The only other trully distinguishable part is the scope which was also made in England.

The Jawa Ion gun was a British Lee-Enfield with a British grenade launcher on it.



All I'm saying is that hte props from Bapty prior to alterations appear to be country specific, nothing more. I agree that we shouldn't limit our searches, just that there appears to be a pattern.

Do we know who added the scopes to the Sterlings? Even though the scopes might have been made in the USA, there were also British issued, American made tanks. What about the Hengslter counters? Do we know who added the scopes to the ESB blasters? Was it Bapty or was it Lucasfilm?

 

[Gigatron]

First off, great work so far guys.

But before we get all caught up looking at country specific part sets, you have to remember that Bapty was a movie prop supply house.

30 yrs after WWII and being british, they probably supplied parts to many, many WWII movies which would mean supplying historically accurate british, german, russian, italian and american parts. They probably went around and bought either surplus or stuff that would have been considered junk at the time, just so they'd have it on hand for war movies.

LFL probably just asked for a couple boxes worth of military surplus, including guns and sight and mounts and other junk they had laying around. Would explain how you get a german gun with a russian mount, or a british gun with an american scope and a german parts counter. Not to mention british airplane engine parts (coughderwentenginecough) for robot heads and what not.

Just something to keep in mind.

Having said that, get back to work you slackers, the mount isn't going to ID itself :lol.

Plus with the correct mount, the newly ID'd muzzle ad the already ID'd scope, we can all build an accurate blaster (granted I'd need the muzzle, mount, scope and a bull barrel).

-Fred

 

[Gigatron]

Ok guys, Just went through all of ANH and was able to come up with a total of 2 decent caps. But, I think only one is truly important.

Look at the following pics:

First up, what I see in the "sitting target" cap

blue is outline of mount, red is weaver rail on side of mauser

Next, cap of greedo killer

the mount looks completely different from anything I've seen. A lot of extraneous screw heads, almost looks like a ZFK3 mount. I thought the only difference between the hero and the GK was the barrel/supressor

and finally, this last pic

it almost looks like the uprights of the mount curve like a shallow "C", first coming away from the body, then back towards it.

Maybe it's an optical illusion, but you guys are better experts than I am at this, so have fun with this one :lol.

-Fred

 

[Prop Runner]

Fred,

I think you missed it, but the "Sitting Target" photo and dovetail feature has already been deconstructed to the max in this thread:

http://www.rpf.invisionzone.com/index.php?...=sitting+target

Good eyes, though. We'll need them in the days and weeks to come...

Perhaps the two threads should be merged? What do you guys think?

I believe your bottom pic is an optical illusion - there's no question from the hi-res still photos of the pre-production prop and the "Sitting Target" photo that the T-bracket is nice and straight, with no outward or inward curves. It's most likely that the motion and lighting distorted the outline in your screen capture.

The GK mount has always been known to be different animal, and it only takes one glance to see the glaring differences. It was constructed in the U.S. and attached to an MGC Mauser replica for the added unholstering footage in the Cantina scene, and later yet another version was constructed for post-production promotional stills, as the hero blaster remained Bapty's property and stayed behind in Britain after shooting wrapped.

Screen capture:

My replica:

Post production (notice the diamond-shaped scope rings and the front ring moved forward past the windage/elevation knobs):

While I adore both the hero and GK versions, let's try to keep the thread focused on just the hero mount - these pics were only for Fred's benefit and for general education, to avoid further confusion.

- Gabe

 

[Gigatron]

Originally posted by Prop Runner@Oct 2 2005, 07:20 PM

these pics were only for Fred's benefit and for general education, to avoid further confusion.

- Gabe

[snapback]1088427[/snapback]​

Aww, gee, thanks Gabe. That was mighty swell of ya :lol

Admittedly, my last post was a bit convoluted. I started on one thought and went off on a tangent midway through.

What I wanted to get accross, was that maybe while the upright and scope was reused from "sitting target", perhaps the mauser was lost (i.e. bapty disassmbled them and didn't think there was any need to keep them together). With no weaver rail for the upright to mount to, LFL bolted a bar with a weaver rail to the mauser and mounted the uprights to that.

Yes, I'm aware this is old news covered in the old thread, I just like to type :lol.

Maybe what we should be looking for is a particular model of mauser that had a weaver rail attached (if such a thing ever existed).

Maybe the prop department from "sitting target" made this whole thing from scratch, and it never existed anywhere.

I have a headache.

-Fred

 

[spinner 44]

To Gabe and Gavidoc,

I'm I crazy? I see the hole I mentioned before on the cradle base here

and here

Please check the original pics (without my crappy markings) and let me know what you think.

Gavidoc,
It is funny you mentioned the scope is tilted... as a matter of fact it seems it was mounted that way on the Hero blaster. I'm curious to knoe if you made your this way or a "idealised" version with a scope and cradle paralel to the barrell. My guess is the first option. Also.. do you have any idea why they made it like this? An error in the adjustment, a missing piece of the mounting system...

 

[Got Maul]

been searching for HOURS everynight for the past week. The one thing that is really getting to me is the fact that I in attacking this mount from a scope "cradle" type angle, I have not found any mounts that have this cradle at all . Nothing in the SKS, Nagant or leapers format support this cradle. Am I blind or has anyone turned up ANYTHING with this type of cradle ?

 

[gavidoc]

Scope was tilted on my replica like the real one.

IF the T bracket has a dovetail maile on it, it isn't attached to a dovetail female on the horizontal bracket. The rear of hte dovetail would sit flush to the actual horizontal bracket allowing the scope to tilt if the center thumbscrew wasn't tightened down enough.

The center hole for the middle thumbscrew isn't directly in the middle of the horizontal bracket. The horizontal bracket is flipped 180 degrees between the Pre and Post photos.

If you line up the thumbscrew location in the Pre shot to the post shot, they are equal distance just from opposite ends.

 

[Got Maul]

You guys, I am starting to feel like we are barking up the wrong tree here. Hear me out

1. Scope cradle- to date, I have seen nothing in all the searches with historical references all the way to today that indicate that there is such a thing as a scope cradle. I have seen every variation of the bull rings under the sun, but they are all SEPERATE and never joined as we see in the cradle above.

2. Those brackets don't make sense in terms of the continuity of the sight adjustments from the history of sniper scope mounts. All the mounts I have encountered are fixed at the base, whether claw form or off centered. Secondly, it harkens to NOTHING out there with the SKS being close, but even the vintage SKS from the days it was manufactured in Russia to fight the germans shows a dual ring configuration. In addition, if you look at the configuration of this mount, it is still WAY primitive to the adjustment mounts of even pre WWII or dare I say WWI ?

now, just like the muzzle, I believe the piece is still found, but I think maybe our efforts might be off. Perhaps the key is in the days of REAL old which, unfortunately, makes things even harder to find, but moreso in the days of WAY before the war when these scope mounts were used for hunting. To me, this would make more sense, and would fit a much more seemingly accurate function for the how primitive this scope is designed.

Secondly, I come back to the cradle. I still to date have to find even a hint of the cradle scope ring system. You would think that this system of adjoining rings would have left some sort of design trail vaguely reminiscent of our ol' holy grail...nothing. So with that, I am redirecting my efforts in two fields :

1. Vintage hunting mounts
2. Search of the Cradle

Please, if someone has something on the cradle, that I have completely overlooked, please update me. Again, I will be the first to admit that I haven't been with you guys on great search through the years for this mount, so therefore my knowledge might be limited to this thread's information or the links that have branched out from it.

 

[Prop Runner]

Spinner,

You ARE crazy as a loon, but you convinced me that there's a hole or depression on the underside of the cradle - at least in Gigatron's photoshop-red-washed closeup. Is it significant? Who knows, but any future version of this mount should take that feature into account if we can get a better view of it and speculate on its diameter and depth. The one contribution it does make to the present discussion is that it helps debunk the center-mounted T-bracket theory: we wouldn't be able to see a hole if the bracket was there, right?

Jose - I tend to agree with you about the cradle - I too have never seen a "scope cradle" for a rifle. On tank and artillery sights, yes, but not on rifles. Which leads me to ask:

COULD THE MOUNT HAVE COME FROM AN EARLY TANK OR ARTILLERY SIGHT?

Or how about these:

- early turn of the century spotting scope?
- early turn of the century surveying instrument?
- early turn of the century rangefinder?
- early turn of the century sextant?

Let's cast our net a little wider and see what falls in, shall we?

- Gabe

 

[Got Maul]

I still think its a sight scope of some sort. Although what really makes believe it was from an earlier era is that it IS consistent that as the farther back you go back in time, I noticed the metal gets LOT heavier and thicker.
The bull scope ring still exists today, but its not nearly as thick as it was...hmm. You're right though, we definitely have to get broader...ho hum.

 

[Durasteel Corporation]

I dunno if this has been mentioned....but has it occured to anyone that the ovular hole is anything but symmetrical....something Id expect from a machined piece.

Even if accounting for a very slight angle, the right side is definately wider than the other.

The inward curvature of the hole is also quite a bit assymetrical from the other...more likely a result of the thinner left side but its possible the hole is not even at the top anyway.

Makes me think an existing hole was widened or more precisely that we are not looking at a machined piece.

also, perhaps this too has been discussed-logic....but if the piece in question was a solid upside down L shape.....wouldnt we see the entire hole...we see it to a point and then it disappears......

........I think this is reason enough to think of a two piece construction: vertical bracket and horizontal cradle.

also, what is the status on the bull barrel. The guys at the shop I went to were fairly well versed in WWII guns...they had a very large selection of books on hand. Nobody recalled seeing a mauser with a bull barrel like that.....but they did speculate it might have been a custom or sniper piece.


Also, whats up with the huge gap/space to the left of the roundel? That doesnt seem consistent with the Solo version....???

D