The other Jawa blaster (the one not made from an Enfield.)
- Thread starter jason1976
- Start date
I though that the 24" seemed a little small too, but as I mentioned in my last post, it fights my hand very well. I'm 6' 3" and have large hands, so if it fights my hands well now, then it is already pretty large, too much larger, then it would be almost impossible for a little person to hold. Plus, keep in mind all the pics posted in this thread of it with a Jawa, are from exhibits, that use a very undersized manikin for the Jawa. (you can tell by the fact that the Jawas robes are in a pile on the floor, at the Jawas feet, because the manikin is way too short. )
Here is a pic that was recently posted in another thread. (I was very excited because it is the only pic I have ever seen of a Jawa holding this blaster. Though I have never seen that detain in the barrel before.)
As for the receiver... I'm not sure. I was going to used different sized pieces of PVC pipe, cut down, but if I do that I have no idea how I would do the ring of diamond knurling on the rear cap part. I'm far to cheap to take it to a Machine shop (and I don't even know where one is here in Columbus) , and I don't do that sort of work myself. Right now my plain is to do one of two things. 1. look for something that size that has that sort of knurl. (flashlight hed, small thermos, etc. etc.) 2. I have a trick that sometime work. You smear a layer of bondo on the surface of the part (as even as you can get it.) Then take a piece of mesh (preferably metal) with a diamond pattern as close to the right scale as possible, spray it lightly whit something like "stoner" or another non-stick spray, and quickly rape it around the item (on top of the wet bondo.) and let it set up. The non-stick release agent will allow the mesh to come free of the bondo, fairly easily, after it sets up, and will leave a diamond pattern that wall not perfect, might be ok for something I just plan on displaying in my apartment.
Am I seeing things here?
It´s a part from the aeroquip/ Eaton Vickers Hydraulic Pump:
Markus
Well good news and bad news about the camera lens idea. Band news is that every lens I looked at in my own collection (so far, some are in storage, and I'll have to look at them later on.) Have a vertical grid/diamond pattern, where as the blaster has a diagonal diamond pattern. (like a chain-link fence.) Good news is, that wall some of the grips where made as part of the lens, there are those where the grip on the lens, are separate pieces of rubber. That means you could cut the grip off the lens, if the lens itself isn't the right shape, and put it on what ever you wanted to us for that end cap looking part.
Also, (and I was afrade of this) My grip/stock is wrong. I'm still standing by the size, and profile of my stock, but I put too much work into it. Mine is very nicely rounded, along the grip area, and behind that part. (like most real stock are. ) It makes it look, very nice, and feels good in the hand. However you can clearly see in the new pics (and some of the old) that the stock on the original isn't very rounded at all. It looks like they cut it from a block of wood, and rounded off the edges just enough to get read of the sharp edge. In other words, from left to right, theres is far more blocky then mine. That said, I liie mine, and I'm far to lazy to make it all over again. My Jawa is far from accurate, so I'm sure he'll be happy with it as is. (what can I say, he's a rebel.) Though, I was hopping to eventually cast mine up for folks, and this means there wouldn't be much point as most folks are going to want something more accurate. Sorry about that folks.
Also, (and I was afrade of this) My grip/stock is wrong. I'm still standing by the size, and profile of my stock, but I put too much work into it. Mine is very nicely rounded, along the grip area, and behind that part. (like most real stock are. ) It makes it look, very nice, and feels good in the hand. However you can clearly see in the new pics (and some of the old) that the stock on the original isn't very rounded at all. It looks like they cut it from a block of wood, and rounded off the edges just enough to get read of the sharp edge. In other words, from left to right, theres is far more blocky then mine. That said, I liie mine, and I'm far to lazy to make it all over again. My Jawa is far from accurate, so I'm sure he'll be happy with it as is.
(what can I say, he's a rebel.) Though, I was hopping to eventually cast mine up for folks, and this means there wouldn't be much point as most folks are going to want something more accurate. Sorry about that folks.
cayman shen
Master Member
I never even noticed that it used to have an "endcap" on the barrell. I just thought it was open like a little Jawa blunderbuss!
Well, when I said "end cap" in my last post I was refuting to the other end. (the back end of the receiver, near the stock.)
Am I seeing things here?
It´s a part from the aeroquip/ Eaton Vickers Hydraulic Pump:
Markus
A very nice find. but I Just don't know what we are looking at with that Jawa pic. I mean the pouches that the front Jawa are a different set (same made, just a different color) and worn in different way (with the buckle on the should) then we usually see from the archive, or from promo stills. And that is the only pic we've seen with that thing in the barrel. I mean, we have other shots that show it from close to a front view, and it just doesn't show at all.
So, these could be replica jawa's with replica blasters, that that make just desided to put his own twist on, or they could be screen used Jawas, and that is a detail that was lost, or removed later. I don't know. I like the blunder buss idea more, so I don't think I'll be doing that detail myself. But it is a nice detail, so I look forward to seeing the blaster made by those that do plan on doing that detail.
cayman shen
Master Member
Oh I knew you meant the back, not the "business end." I was going on a tangent...
Gigatron
Sr Member
Only other pic I have is of the jawa, himself, nothing more of the blaster :unsure.
I didn't even know the manufacturer marks were on there until I got home. If I had, I would have made a point of getting much better images.
-Fred
Thrawn
Well-Known Member
I don't know if this has been covered before, but the horn part looks a lot like a vintage car horn, or an "ahooga" horn as some like to say, with its mounting bracket ring taken off:
Then again I've never played this ID the part game so I might look like an idiot now
Then again I've never played this ID the part game so I might look like an idiot now
Last edited by a moderator:
Gigatron
Sr Member
Thrawn, there's no such thing as looking like an idiot in the ID game. Look to see if you can find the history of the OBI ANH saber identification :lol.
The only thing with this blaster is, on page 2 (or 3, depending on your threads per page), I show the manufacturer's name and part number for the part. Just seems no one wants to look at it :unsure.
-Fred
The only thing with this blaster is, on page 2 (or 3, depending on your threads per page), I show the manufacturer's name and part number for the part. Just seems no one wants to look at it :unsure.
-Fred
Then again I've never played this ID the part game so I might look like an idiot now
I really like this idea. And, yes, at one time we had lots of different theories on the Obi ANH saber, some used to think the grenade part was a rubber motorcycle handle. :lol It took like 30 years to figure that one out, and almost everyone wanted to figure that on out, this one is kind of low on most people priorities. (That we are in the minority in liking this gun, not that the people posting thin this thread aren't giving it there all.
)I noticed, and
appreciate you posting that info, but for some reason I was thinking that was on the back part of the receiver. (near, or on, the end cape section.) If that is the case, then the front could very well be made by someone else. Including a car horn maker. Besides, if we can't find the real part used, the horn idea, might be a nice alterative, even if it turns out not to be what was actually used.
I would make the suggestion to look at old time military cars. Wall I can't really think of why a military car would need a horn, other then a "Wake up, time to die" kind of thing, many of the props for these films were made from old army gear. (Ok, most of the props where made from old army gear. :lol)
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Jawa blaster (you know, the one that looks a little like a mini blunderbuss?)
I'm sorry, I really hated that movie, but that gun does look remarkably like the jawa blaster. I mean, not so much so, that I would think that it was the same base gun, or anything, but close enough, that I would have to say the people that made it, probably where fans of the Jawa blaster. (at least on a subconscious level. )
Anyone else notice the similarity in the Hitchikers' POV gun?
I'm sorry, I really hated that movie, but that gun does look remarkably like the jawa blaster. I mean, not so much so, that I would think that it was the same base gun, or anything, but close enough, that I would have to say the people that made it, probably where fans of the Jawa blaster. (at least on a subconscious level.
)
Thrawn
Well-Known Member
Upon further review, I think the car horn LOOKS like the thing you need, and would work in a replica, but is not the found part. If you look at lots (and I mean lots) of pictures of long lenses, you see some have the same general shape as the one on the gun. For example, take this lens here and knock off the big cylindrical part on the front so its just the cone, and take the camera off the back.
Pretty similar. Also if you look around at old timey gun cameras/pistol cameras/rifle cameras or what have you, most looks similar in setup. Perhaps this actually was a pistol grip mount for long lenses back in the day, and they barely changed it (if it all) for the movie, and we are just confusing ourselves?
EDIT: Also, nobody seems to have commented on this, on the first page, picture number 3 in post number 8, is that a replica? If not, its got a completely different lens (if thats what it is) on it. Notice its got another backwards facing cone instead of a cylinder in the middle, and the flange on the end of the barrel is significantly wider.
Pretty similar. Also if you look around at old timey gun cameras/pistol cameras/rifle cameras or what have you, most looks similar in setup. Perhaps this actually was a pistol grip mount for long lenses back in the day, and they barely changed it (if it all) for the movie, and we are just confusing ourselves?
EDIT: Also, nobody seems to have commented on this, on the first page, picture number 3 in post number 8, is that a replica? If not, its got a completely different lens (if thats what it is) on it. Notice its got another backwards facing cone instead of a cylinder in the middle, and the flange on the end of the barrel is significantly wider.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upon further review, I think the car horn LOOKS like the thing you need, and would work in a replica, but is not the found part. If you look at lots (and I mean lots) of pictures of long lenses, you see some have the same general shape as the one on the gun. For example, take this lens here and knock off the big cylindrical part on the front so its just the cone, and take the camera off the back.
Pretty similar. Also if you look around at old timey gun cameras/pistol cameras/rifle cameras or what have you, most looks similar in setup. Perhaps this actually was a pistol grip mount for long lenses back in the day, and they barely changed it (if it all) for the movie, and we are just confusing ourselves?
EDIT: Also, nobody seems to have commented on this, on the first page, picture number 3 in post number 8, is that a replica? If not, its got a completely different lens (if thats what it is) on it. Notice its got another backwards facing cone instead of a cylinder in the middle, and the flange on the end of the barrel is significantly wider.
Yeah, I noticed that not only have we seen pics of at least two different screen used versions, but that they are quite different from each other. I have yet to decide if I want to do the double cone vertion, or the one with the more cylindrical center. (though I'm leaning towards the one with the more cylindrical mid part.)
As a collector of old time cameras, I both see where your coming from on the lens idea, and can conform that there are a lot of grips/stocks out there for hand held cameras, to help stabilize them wall being held, and many of those designs are clearly inspired by gun grips, and stocks. Some even have triggering operatives on the stock, to make it easier to take the picture, wall holding it like a gun. Plus, long lenses, do tend to have there own tripod adapter built into them, to give the rig a more central balance point. (by using that more central tripod mount, it makes it less likely that your rig will tip over, all mounted on a tripod.)
In other word, this hold darn thing could be a camera rig. from the stock, to the trigger, to the whole "receiver".
That said, old camera gear, is getting as hard to find as old army gear. Ever last darn person is making the move to digital, and old timers like me, are considered dinosaurs for even talking about the old tech. Man I miss film, there was magic, and skill about it, that just can't be matched by digital. But I digress.
I would turn to our friends over seas, as most of the best camera gear, especially when it comes to the really old stuff, came from over seas. I'm thinking German, or maybe English, maybe even Italian,. You could consider Japan, or China, but they didn't really take off, as makers of quality camera gear, until cameras because more about the tech, and less about the skill. (i.e. when photography moved from the "View"camera, to something more handheld, and accessible to the public.) But hey, other then the Camera-0obscurea (sorry if that's miss spelled) used since ancient times, you only have a little over 100 years of cameras to look at. :lol (though I woundn't expect it to be any older then the 50's, 40's at the oldest, but that's just a guess.)
Though, I will add, that the flange at the front concerns me. I've seen that on an old timey car horn, and on other items that have been suggested, but I'm yet to see it on a camera lens. (cut down, or other wise) I'm not saying there isn't one out there like that, I'm just saying I can't recall seeing one, personally.
Last edited by a moderator:
lonepigeon
Master Member
To clarify a couple things.
The prop itself is from ROTJ. The jawas in Jabba's palace can be seen with it.
Similar guns were made for TPM (the ones with the 9-hole "rotary dial" piece inside) - ignore those for any research into the part origins. They were just scratch built looking at the original ROTJ prop.
IIRC the cone part was believed to be an aircraft piece, but I can't remember what the thing was called right now. Several were found, but none an exact match.
Aeroquip is the big clue.
The prop itself is from ROTJ. The jawas in Jabba's palace can be seen with it.
Similar guns were made for TPM (the ones with the 9-hole "rotary dial" piece inside) - ignore those for any research into the part origins. They were just scratch built looking at the original ROTJ prop.
IIRC the cone part was believed to be an aircraft piece, but I can't remember what the thing was called right now. Several were found, but none an exact match.
Aeroquip is the big clue.
pennywise
Sr Member
Aeroquip is a hydraulic hose and fitting company. The gun is many different components thrown together (like Boba Fetts gun), a very large hydraulic or pnumatic coupling with a what looks like a 2" firehose adapter screwed to the coupling and then has a horn of some type welded on the tip. I'm almost sure of it. The coupling you will probably not find being sold new as this is an older model of fitting.
As far as the armature that attaches to the trigger I still havent figured that out.
Also, it may well be a line throwing device made by an independant contractor that was a fabricated product of their own design using purchased items such as the Aeroquip fitting we see. This would be a good reason ILM would have used it due to the obscurity of it's nature.
As far as the armature that attaches to the trigger I still havent figured that out.
Also, it may well be a line throwing device made by an independant contractor that was a fabricated product of their own design using purchased items such as the Aeroquip fitting we see. This would be a good reason ILM would have used it due to the obscurity of it's nature.
Last edited:
Hey Fred
I looked...believe me :rolleyes
I spent about 3 hours seraching google for aeroquip/ eaton products and parts...without any luck so far. The only thing I found was the 9-holed disc, which is part of a hydraulic pump. Even if the overall part wouldn´t be a pump of some kind, I hoped to use the disc for correctly scaling this blaster.
Aeroquip/ eaton produced mainly hoses/ fitting and other parts.
These parts found use in engines, pumps etc.
I´m still trying to figure out what this item has been used for?
The "receiver" and the gear section of this blaster seem to belong together :confused They don´t seem to be cobbled together by a prop-department.
Was there some kind of "handheld syrene (sp?)" back the days, that could have been used as the base for this gun?
Questions about questions...:wacko
Markus
cayman shen
Master Member
The picture above, with all the aeroquip stuff...third down on the left?
Similar threads
