User talk:Lenijo

Welcome to IMFDB

Before you do any editing please take the time to read the Rules, Standards and Principles. This is a very important document that explains how this website is setup as well as telling you what is and isn't allowed. If it is determined by an admin that you have not read these rules, your account will be suspended. Continued non-compliance may result in a permanent ban.

There are a number of pages that desperately need your help. You can find these Incomplete pages here.

If you have any questions, feel free to post them here but make sure to sign your post by typing --~~~~.

Finally, IMFDB has a forum set up here that is only available to registered members. There is lots of good stuff to see there. If you would like to join the forum, please post HERE and an account will be created for you.

Now, HAPPY EDITING! Zackmann08 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2012 (EST)

Star Wars Blaster

Much as you might see claims on the internet that the ANH Blasters were somehow based on the BSA M1949, you have to realise how completely unrealistic that idea is. The M1949 was never produced at all, let alone in quantity, so there's no way a movie prop house could get hold of enough to equip dozens of extras with. What the guns actually are, by all accounts, is embellished non-functional rubber casts of a Sterling SMG with the magazine well removed so they could be holstered on actors' right hip more easily.

To settle this, here is one of the ANH rubber prop guns along with a sterling:

DH-17 prop as seen in "A New Hope"

Sterling Mk. IV Submachine Gun - 9x19mm

There are several features which identify this as a Sterling. Firstly, the end cap on the rear of the receiver matches the Sterling although the receiver on the prop is shortened. Secondly, note the slanted rear of the ejection port which is characteristic of the Sterling. Lastly the grip panels are off of a Sterling. Also, on the BSA M1949 the receiver ends immediately in front of the magazine well, as opposed to on the prop gun where there is about an inch or two of receiver in front of the mag well (or where it would be if it wasn't removed) before the handguard starts. The shape of the handguard is also slightly wrong, stepping down slightly before it narrows as opposed to on the BSA where it is smooth. It is possible that the person who designed the prop saw the BSA M1949 and liked the look of the handguard and was inspired by that, but as far as I can tell the prop is built from Sterling casts with fabricated add on parts. --commando552 (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2012 (EST)

My first time replying on User Talk, hope I'm doing it correctly:

"The M1949 was never produced at all, let alone in quantity, so there's no way a movie prop house could get hold of enough to equip dozens of extras with." + "Also, on the BSA M1949 the receiver ends immediately in front of the magazine well, as opposed to on the prop gun where there is about an inch or two of receiver in front of the mag well (or where it would be if it wasn't removed) before the handguard starts. The shape of the handguard is also slightly wrong, stepping down slightly before it narrows as opposed to on the BSA where it is smooth.- I never claimed that the guns used in the films ANH or ESB were functional blank-firing BSA M1949 guns, just that they were props based on the BSA M1949 design. So no, the movie prop maker didn't have to get dozens of BSA M1949's; just one, maybe two. And the design inconsistencies you sight are irrelevant to whether or not the design of the prop was based on the BSA as I claimed in my post. The handguard is obviously, unmistakably from the BSA gun; the end "cap" on the back of the body is far more consitent with the end cap of the BSA(which had the folding stock attached to it on the functional gun but removed for the movie prop) than the end body cap of the Sterling, which did not have the folding stock attached to it in the same way. The rest of a Sterlin's design, action and configuration is essentially the same as the BSA gun; the Sterling was adopted in 1953, but designed in 1949, the same year the BSA prototype was produced. Therefore, I feel there's more than enough evidence to support the claims I made in my post

We identify guns based on what they are, not on what they appear to be. For several reasons, this gun is obviosuly actually made from Sterling moulds, not a BSA. You are wrong about the end cap being different, look at the two images above, it is pretty much identical. If it was the end cap from a BSA it would have a pivot at the top. The handguard is very similar, so much so that they person who designed it may have been inspired by a picture of the BSA based on its odd look, but it is not actually a cast of a BSA as the spacing of the ribbing is too big and it is too slender. This gun is already a gray area as it is not actualy a weapon but rather something that is based on castings, but if it is identified as anything it is a Sterling, as this is the only physical gun that the prop is based on. If the gun was based on a BSA rather than a Sterling, then it wouldn't have the pistol grip, trigger housing, ejection port and end cap of a Sterling. Have only just noticed this now, but if you look at the ANH casting you can see that it incorporates the semi circular Sterling rear sight, rather than the wedge shaped BSA one. Also, just because the two guns were designed in the same year doesn't make it any mor elikely that it will be the BSA. I think the two guns were competing design for a STEN replacement, the similarity between the two is not that the Sterling copied the BSA, but rather both of them copied the STEN. You can mention that the handguard is similar (possibly based on) the one from the BSA, but the main "source" is the Sterling. --commando552 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2012 (EST)