Stunt Blaster Casting

[DaveG]

Greetings. I am new to these forums and am totally enjoying all the material presented here about this great movie. I thought I'd share a few photos of a casting of the stunt blaster that I've had in my collection for quite a while, 12 to 15 years, at least. The serial number is the same and I have every reason to beleave it to be a casting from a first generation mold taken directly from a stunt blaster and not a copy of a copy.

[joberg]

Wow Dave...first the etchings and now this ...alright, who are you?
No really

[DaveG]

[Bendzhamin1967]

The film and it's multi layers of design are very addictive. I have noticed when someone tells me they are an artist of any sort, they almost ALWAYS love this film. I appreciate the giving spirit here at PropSummit... amazing group pf dedicated film fans. PLUS a wealth of knowledge i would have to scour the 'net for for days can be found in nanoseconds... will make MY project that much easier.
_________________
I've had people walk out on me before, but never when i was being so charming

[joberg]

Great news! Always nice to have industry pros on the board...btw, did work on the Abyss?

[DaveG]

[andy]

Dave,

Thank you again for sharing this. It will add to the debate about these stunt castings for sure. From what I can tell there are two different castings from stunts that propagated after the film. The main difference being the screws. In one of the castings the screws were changed out, maybe by someone who wanted to update his/her casting because the screws cast so poorly. The question being if the screws were changed out by someone on set, or by a collector later? The fact that both versions have had some provenance has added to much debate and controversy. having a casting with the screws missing might be a missing link, or just someone else who decided the screws cast poorly.

Andy

[racprops]

Well to my eye it looks like these were drilled out after molding and casting, otherwise mold would fill the deep holes.

Rich
_________________
I never have enough time to do all I want to do!

[Noeland]

That's what I was thinking too. It's always nice to see castings of this sucker though.

Dave, are you planning to finish this? Paint it up?
_________________
I don't have enough blasters!

[joberg]

Great models on that movie! Shame that there's so much CG now...I'm from the old school: practical model and special fx on camera are my thing .

As for the casting of that gun, as you can see the plot thickens

[DaveG]

[joberg]

Yep, I saw that debacle Dave...it's a shame. Even Don Bies mentioned that the behaviour on the board on certain subjects degenerates quickly into a high drama fest.

Nothing of this sort here we're always excited and thankfull for the informations given to us by pros in the business.

As you saw, we're always in need of good refs and good stories (wish I had good ones from Michael Fink and his buid of the V.K. machine...some were posted here by Bwood and Nick Daring via continuity photos taken during principal photography).

Btw: congrats on your Emmy for the mini-serie Pacific. (IMDB is our friend here also ).

[ironfist]

Very nice!
I want one!
_________________
The other Karl!

[andy]

Yes, I don't want to stir up any controversy here. Just get to the truth, and as long as people have an open mind it can be done without drama. I know we have had our fair share of drama here, but it has usually resolved itself for the better in the end.

I love learning about the stories of these props, and digging into the truth about them. I am not willing to draw any one conclusion based on a few facts, and am always willing to see new angles and possibilities. That is when things really gel into a story that comes to life. Of course my theory here is only speculation, and more a show of concept. It would only have any real weight if it were made of the same material as some of the studio made stunts, or other vintage material. The resin looks like a common garage kit makers resin. As a matter of fact I also have a stunt cast made from the same type of resin that has also had some of the screws drilled out. I do know that it is also about 20 years old too.

I think if I had a point at all it was that I was wondering how old this stunt is, and if it came from the same source as the Hades etchings? What would the time frame be that people were modifying these stunt casting first, and could it been going on set? I am sure people will have their opinions and most will be polar, but in my experience the truth is something often not fully expected and falls somewhere in between. To me it is like a detective novel, and I love looking for that smoking gun.

Andy

[DaveG]

Andy, No worries, I like to get to the bottom of things too! I know there are a lot of, shall we say "less reputable" people out there that would try to pass something off as something it's not.

I am 100% (well, 99.8% sure) that this IS NOT a vintage casting from the original molds from the production. I'm sorry if I had implied that. I know the person that had the mold and poured this casting. It was maybe 15 years ago, give or take. I traded some castings of a model from The Abyss for the blaster, a couple of Star Trek V stunt phaser castings and a set of X-Wing Pyro model castings. It is poured from Alumilite urethane resin which I don't believe was available in the early 80's. Most of the resins of that era were more "oily" and translucent and this doesn't look at all like it's made from that material. I have a couple of Tyrell pyramid detail castings and they don't look at all like this.

This casting did not come from the same source as the Hades etched brass but from another, very reputable modelmaker. I have a recollection of him saying he pulled the mold off an original stunt casting, which would make this a second generation casting. But again, I am not sure of this.

Now that I think back on it, I think I may have been the one to drill out the screws and the support bar under the front of the barrel. This piece was not pressure cast and has a few bubbles. I think the screw heads were all bad.

It's just a neat thingto have and a neat thing to hold.

Cheers,
_________________
Dave

"I just want to say people... Get A Life! Move out of your parent's basement! It's just a movie!"

[racprops]

As far as I know the first run was done around 84/85, I know I used a couple in making my first Blade Runner Blaster in 1985. I know whom did them but wonder why names are not being used, so will hold of saying any.

There is pictures of one of these early model with clean up work and replacement parts on my web site at :

http://www.racprops.com/issue1/brgun_pt2/

http://www.racprops.com/issue1/brgun_pt2/brgun1.htm

The Stunt casting I offered last year were made off a copy of those first casting with no changes, one of the reasons I felt they were so special, as almost everyone who wants to make copies has done as was done on this one, drilled out the bad screws and started to replace them.

Another tell is how the points of the diamond pattern on the left side are all full of air bubbles.

Now the question is how much shrinkage is there, for each generation drops in size, so how long is the receiver???

Rich
_________________
I never have enough time to do all I want to do!

[DaveG]

The receiver is 6.930" from the back to the front of the turned part in the front. See attached photo.


_________________
Dave

"I just want to say people... Get A Life! Move out of your parent's basement! It's just a movie!"

[racprops]

Well I have a real Steyr receiver and I get 7.746.

Without the front insert either.

Rich


_________________
I never have enough time to do all I want to do!

[Vader]

And the front insert makes about ... what? 0.08" of difference?

Which would mean that Dave's cast has shrunk about 12% from the original.

So... do we have a good rule-of-thumb figure for the shrinkage percentage per generation? To me, 12% in two generations seems very plausible, even likely, but I am far from any expert.

//Jussi
_________________
26354

[DaveG]

There are too many variables to come up with an accurate rule of thumb for shrinkage. The type of rubber, platinum based silicones shrink less than tin based silicones. How the rubber was catalyzed, if you over catalyze the rubber to get it to set faster you get more shrinkage. If you cure the mold in an oven or hot box it'll shrink more. And different casting resins have different amounts of shrinkage. Though this casting was poured out of Alumilite which has a shrinkage rate of only one half of one percent.

12% is pretty high for only two generations, but not unheard of. This casting could certainly have more "ancestors" than that. To me, it really doesn't matter. I know it's not an original casting, so it's a copy. What is more important to me is how clean it is. As castings get remolded they tend to get more and more messed up. This one is remarkably clean for being what coud be several generations old. The casting does have a few bubbles, but they are all from the resin pour, not from the mold. The surfaces are all really clean and smooth and the detail crisp, all of the engraving is in great condition. There is only one, relatively minor, set of mold lines. Often multi generation castings will have cast in mold lines from earlier moldings or show tell tail signs of having been cleaned up.
_________________
Dave

"I just want to say people... Get A Life! Move out of your parent's basement! It's just a movie!"