Dreamdasher

What makers marks are you using to determine that? Is it just the oversized foregrip?

Well, I just recently learned that Ruger, in a silly attempt to stick it to California's handgun safety roster, pulled sales of all of their firearms in CA a few years ago. All they've successfully done is stuck it to their customers here. So, that means that my "DL-30 Blaster Pistol" build is on hold indefinitely unless I can find a private party to purchase the pistol from. I have another idea for one built from an M1 Carbine. Maybe I'll tinker on that while I wait for the parts for my E-11 to arrive.

Wow, so it looks like for the version with the AR-style retractable stock, they've converted the front portion of the old E-11's collapsible stock into a folding forward grip. That's a genius idea, actually.

The armor definitely looks good. I like how it appears functional and doesn't go for the tired trope of trying to over-sexualize female armor. The only thing I see an issue with, from a functionality standpoint, is the boots, which are just asking for a twisted ankle if you ever had to engage Rebel scum in a firefight.

I'm trying to decide between going with the classic trilogy style of Stormtrooper armor or the New Order variety. On one hand, having grown up with the classic era Stormtroopers, they seem much more iconic to me, and more recognizable. However, with the release of TFA in a few days, and with my ability to buy armor being almost a year away, by the time I'm in a position to get armor of my own (my goal is to have it in time for Halloween), they'll be pretty mainstream as far as the recognizable Stormtrooper goes. I also think the New Order armor looks better. The new troopers, to me, look more intimidating. I'm not looking for someone to choose for me since I'm aware the decision is ultimately my own. I'm just looking for insight and comments from the rest of the community on the matter.

In short, it's when someone makes a cast of a cast. Basically, if you build your own prop using a guide (screencaps, step-by-step, research, etc), you have a replica. If you then create a mold from that replica and cast parts from it, you have what's called a "cast." If someone takes one of those casts and creates molds of their own from it, and then casts parts from that, those are called "recasts." To sum it up: Replica > Copy > Copy of Copy Some people frown on the practice of recasting entirely, while others only frown on recasters that claim their products are true castings.

That doesn't much change the perceived hypocrisy that people are feeling. It still comes across as a "do as we say, not as we do" attitude. They're putting their own costumed actors with blasters on the scene, but then they don't want any 501st there with blasters? What are they afraid of, exactly? The crowd certainly won't be able to tell the difference.

There are female troopers in Battlefront, both with and without helmets (the fact that troopers can go into battle without helmets is a matter for another debate). Fully armored female troopers look almost identical to males, just with very slightly slimmer builds, and they wear the female trooper armor that has the slightly narrower abdomen armor. Female troopers with their helmets off look just like the helmeted ones, except...well, without the helmet.

Oh, wow. I actually wasn't familiar with that version. I always looked at the ANH version. I guess my knowledge on the lore wasn't as up to snuff as I thought.

Slightly off-topic, but it appears they sell replica Sturmgewehrs, which are the basis for the A280 blaster rifle.

It's really funny how this topic is so hotly debated, but it's completely understandable just why it's such a hot topic. So, recasting is bad, right? I'll give my personal opinions at the end of this post, but I want to try and view it objectively since I just got into the community. The original product is the result of research, looking at screen caps or action figures, and then doing everything you can to replicate what you see. So, in essence, even the original is a copy of someone else's creative work. However, it can be argued that the original creator of the replica put in the most actual, physical work and research. A recast is then someone taking a copy of a replica and making a copy of that. It cannot really be argued that the recast wasn't easier to make. Copies are easy to create, that's why people make them. However, the debate starts around whether or not making that copy-of-a-copy was a bad thing, and whether or not selling it is bad, or wearing it is bad but not as bad. Let's take something basic as an example: An E-11 blaster. An "original replica" would be you buying a Sterling or a Sterling replica, attaching the T-tracks, the counter, the scope, the rail, and then modifying the magazine and other components yourself. You now have an "original replica" of the E-11 used in the movies. That's an important distinction. Yours is a replica, not the original. Unless your casts come from an original movie prop, of course. Even then, Sterling is responsible for the majority of what you have. They designed the SMG back in the 1940s, and all of the accessories you attached to it are just you copying what you've seen on screen. Someone else in the Lucasfilm props deparment did all of the creative work back in the 70s, so all of the "work" you put into it (assuming you didn't just follow a guide on this site) was just you trying to figure out how to accurately copy someone else's work. If you followed a guide, then you did even less work, since someone else did all of the research and you're just following step-by-step instructions on how to create your own replica. So you decide you want to sell castings of your E-11. You take the completed rifle, cast it in silicone, and then make kits to sell online. What you're distributing now are essentially copies of a copy of someone else's creative work, and you're charging for the labor you invested in creating the kits. Someone buys your kit, and then makes castings of your castings, which are recastings, and sells those online. Their recasts are now copies of copies of copies, and their quality is likely inferior to the original, and inferior to your original castings as well. So, where do I stand on recasting? Here's how I feel about it: If you went through the trouble of creating an original replica from your own measurements and attempted to replicate the original movie prop, that's cool. If you then decided to make cast copies of that work so that others can have what you have, that's fine too. The money you charge isn't payment for the prop, it's payment for the time and effort you put into creating cast copies of the original replica you created. It makes sense, really. Some people want to wear Stormtrooper armor that's as close to authentic as possible, but not everyone has access to the facilities needed to craft their own from scratch. I can't generate much outrage if someone takes your copy, makes their own copy, and then sells it at a cheaper price, especially if they're upfront about them being recastings. It's going to be inferior quality, after all. I have absolutely no problem with people warning others about recasters. In fact, I encourage it! Given the sensitive and serious nature that many of us have about authenticity, it's very important that we spread the word about inferior products, and ensure that troopers only buy their supplies from people that provide high quality replicas. However, I draw the line at comparing these people to thieves, or acting as if they have no moral fiber. You made a replica, and then made a copy of that replica, which they bought, made copies of, and then distributed. To me, this is akin to writing a piece of software that intentionally duplicates an official piece of software as closely as possible, distributing copies of that software, and then complaining when someone else downloads your copy and starts distributing it, too. You basically copied someone else's ideas and designs wholesale. Of course, if they're lying and claiming that their recasts are original castings, that is a serious issue, because that's fraud, but if someone's admitting to selling recasts, then they're not doing anything wrong in my opinion since they're being up front about it. Is it a lazier way of doing things? Sure, but morally and ethically, they're not really doing anything you didn't do. They're taking someone else's work, making copies, and then charging for the labor they invested in creating the copies, which is basically exactly what the original caster did. I would never buy anything from a recaster myself, but that's not because I see them as thieves, it's because I see them as lazy, and I don't support laziness.

The rails are what got me. It depends on what you think the T-tracks are supposed to be. I always assumed they were some sort of heat sinks meant to bleed heat off of the blaster barrel. However, they could also be handguards that allow you to hold the barrel without burning your hand. If they're supposed to be heat sinks, the U-tracks seem like they'd work better for that, being thinner and having more surface area. However, if they're supposed to be grips that insulate your hands while still allowing an air-cooling effect on the barrel, the T-tracks seem more appropriate. Of course, the entire debate is somewhat moot, because the real reason the blasters have T-tracks is just to disguise the Sterling somewhat and make the blasters look more unique and more futuristic.

Masked men with guns, yes. That's why I said I can understand the aversion to troopers carrying blasters unless it's a big, sanctioned event like a parade or a fan film or something. The idea of a rational adult actually being scared by seeing someone in a Stormtrooper outfit is baffling to me, honestly. I know that not everyone is familiar with Star Wars, but when you see a guy that's obviously wearing some kind of costume? People get scared way too easily.

It looks slick, but as a shooter in real life, seeing the counter and power pack moved to the right side of the rifle and used by right-handed troopers irks me a bit. That placement would make using it as a lefty just fine, but as a right-handed shooter, it would be very inconvenient.

I can understand not wanting weapons, especially realistic looking ones, but the mask rule is pretty absurd. If someone's going to carry out some sort of attack at a theatre, they're not going to leave their mask at home because it's against theatre policy. It's safe to assume by that point that they don't give a damn about the theatre's policies if they're going there to attack people.

Just wondering if anyone's considered building a version of the E-11 present in the latest Battlefront game. I'm at work right now, so I can't post any screenshots, but from memory, there are three dramatic differences between it and the standard OT E-11s. First, instead of T-tracks, it has U-tracks. These appear to be flat pieces of thin metal bent into a U shape and screwed into the heat shield holes such that the two tines of the U face outwards. Second, rather than a thin metal rail running from one of the heat shield holes to the rear sight, the rifle has an actual, solid physical rail on top, welded or even molded into the receiver itself. Third, the muzzle has a flat cap on it with a single hole in the middle, rather than the offset bayonet socket found on the original Sterling. I'll post pictures when I get home, but I've been considering building one of these as a side project while I wait on the parts for the official ANH E-11 that I'm building.

It looks really authentic. Very nicely done! It seems like something that could be an official Imperial detachment, like a specific special forces branch or maybe elite bodyguards, something where a unique uniform would be used to stand out and say "Watch it, these guys are elites." Very cool.

That new blaster rifle looks pretty slick. Interesting that they swapped the power pack and counter to the right side. That placement doesn't make any sense for right-handed users. The armor looks really good, too, though it appears that the New Order helmets are going to be even more difficult to see out of.

I noticed that a lot of the weapons in the prequels seem to be scratch made, probably designed by a prop designer and then cast or fabricated, and far fewer of them are based off of real life weapons. Is there any interest in constructing original weapons or variants using Star Wars styles? Specifically, using real world weapons as a basis for constructing Star Wars universe blasters, and trying to capture the same feel as the original trilogy's weapons. I'm working on an idea for a smaller blaster pistol based on the Ruger 22/45 and didn't want to bother sharing pics and whatnot of the process if nobody here would be interested. The 22/45 has a similar shape to the C96 Mauser, so I'm envisioning it as a smaller version of the DL-44, perhaps made for people with smaller hands or a desire for a lighter blaster.

I used to feel a little claustrophobic when I wore full helmets and masks for paintball and airsoft. If it's more of a mental issue, one way that helps a lot is to wear it in comfortable places like home, just like others here have suggested. Another thing that I found helps is to imagine the helmet as an extension of your own body rather than a foreign object, much in the same way you think of your clothing as being part of your person while you're wearing them.

It's cool, though I noticed that the artist probably didn't realize what the folded stock was and left it on there, except now it's a super long folding stock!

Got it. Thanks! Oh, as another note so I'm not creating a new thread for this: I'm creating my E-11 from an all-metal Airsoft Sterling SMG. Can that qualify for L3?

Okay, so I'm under the impression that in order to qualify for the higher levels of certification, you have to be closer to having a canon costume and canonical components. In other words, the closer to canon, the higher the certification. Is that correct? I ask because I noticed that for level 2+ certification, you have to have the power cylinders and the counter, yet screen caps from ANH show several Stormtroopers on duty with E-11s that don't have counters or power cylinders. While the real-life explanation of this could be prop malfunctions or limited materials for extras playing Stormtroopers, it could be assumed that the canonical reason for these discrepancies is that the counter (and associated power cells) could be optional equipment, much in the same way modern solders are sometimes allowed to remove or add certain accessories on their standard issue rifles. The counter and cells do occupy a considerable chunk of the shooter's field of view, so I can easily see some troopers preferring not to have them so as to facilitate a clearer sight picture. Does the 501st consider those counter-free rifles to be non-canon and simply the result of a special effects blunder, or is it something else?

The closest thing to an "official" Imperial sniper blaster I've ever heard of is the E-11s, which originates from the original Battlefront game. The ones in the games are based on the MG-34 machine gun and thus look essentially like a DLT-19 with a scope mounted on top. There's also a drawing from one of the tech books that is obviously an artist concept, which appears to be a standard E-11 with a longer barrel and modern precision-style stock on it. As for either one being officially accepted by the 501st, I have no idea. The concept drawing probably isn't canon, so likely isn't permitted. The E-11s may or may not be depending on whether or not game-exclusive material is accepted.

I spotted this supposed E-11 on the Star Wars Wiki, and I'm confused. This clearly isn't a standard E-11 blaster, and I can't find any reference to its origins myself. It still bears the hallmarks of being based on the Sterling SMG, but has several unique additions, including a block where the magwell used to be, added nubs and a port where the counter normally goes, and a considerably different barrel shroud, muzzle, and front sight. Anyone know where this comes from?