TOS & TOS Movie Hand Phaser Type II Length

[James Wright]

Can someome confirm some information I came across about TOS Hand Phaser Type II? I used an online conversion table to try and find the length of the phaser mentioned above, if the information in TOS Technical Manual is accurate, TOS Type II Hand Phaser is just a tick over 8.7 inches long, if this is correct how long is the phaser seen in Star Trek VI TUC?

JDW

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Please just ignore the info in the FJ Tech Manual. It is not representative of any phaser I've ever seen (though I should point out that there were multiple props made through the series and there MIGHT have been one or two made to that basic shape and size at SOME point). The ones that were seen throughout the series as "hero" props are shaped differently and are not the same size.

Master Replicas' version was based on the most popular hero prop... the one we saw in every "Kirk's Hand close up" shot after the early Season 1 shots (with the black and white paint job versions).

 

[James Wright]

Did you all know that TNG Tech Manual doesn't give any dimensions for the hand phaser or the phaser rifle!

JDW

 

[Cary L. Brown]

JDW said:
Did you all know that TNG Tech Manual doesn't give any dimensions for the hand phaser or the phaser rifle!

JDW

I know, but there IS a scale printed on the page, so the entire page can be reduced by scale. (The page, as I recall, showed the component slightly oversized).

 

[James Wright]

There may be a scale in the manual you have but my copy of the manual doesn't have a scale anywhere, I was talking about TNG Manual.
TOS Manual does have a scale, it also has dimensions for the Type II Hand Phaser.
Who designed TNG phasers anyway?

JDW

 

[Captain Robert April]

Paging Drs. Probert and Sternbach, please report to reception.

Regarding the FJ drawing of the Phaser II, that was based upon the horribly cropped picture in "The Making of Star Trek".

As for a good representation of the prop, without having to take out a bank loan, go with the Art Asylum version. That's about as dead bang accurate as you're gonna get for less than a hundred bucks.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Captain Robert April said:
Paging Drs. Probert and Sternbach, please report to reception.

Regarding the FJ drawing of the Phaser II, that was based upon the horribly cropped picture in "The Making of Star Trek".

As for a good representation of the prop, without having to take out a bank loan, go with the Art Asylum version. That's about as dead bang accurate as you're gonna get for less than a hundred bucks.

Absolutely true. The Art Asylum version, sat next to the Master Replicas version, looks ALMOST the same. There are a few issues with fine details (handle shape) and some ugly seams and screw holes, but it's generally very close to the right size and shape... and as you say, for the $$$ it's a steal! (It just doesn't have the heft my all-metal M.R. one does... )

 

[aridas sofia]

I'd like to insert a fanboy gush here -- I absolutely loved the organic, flowing lines of Probert's phaser design for TNG. I thought the notion of leaving behind a pistol shape -- designed for projectiles -- and adopting a flashlight shape -- designed to project a beam of energy (light) -- was inspired and beautifully simple. Though that form was maintained in the later redesigns by others, something of the beauty was lost. The later phasers were like Grendel P30s to Probert's beautiful SIG P232 . Similar in form, but what a difference a few lines can make!

As for the TOS and TMP pistols, it would be very, very hard to top the utilitarian and subtly retro lines of the Jefferies brothers original phaser design. But one design that might come close was never used --

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/frs-1-sheet-13.jpg

This was a Probert design for TMP that was bulked up and made more clunky, maybe because of the needed electronics. I like it the way it is here.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

One bit of trivia re: the original TOS phaser that most people don't pick up.

Look closely at a TOS phaser. It has a set of linear lines along the side, below the type-1 unit. Few people realize what those are there for. And on some of the early, "cheap knock off" versions, you'd never guess anyway. But the MR version, and to a large extent the AA version, show this quite well.

We know that the type-1 unit has a pop-up targetting scope that is also available for the type-2 unit when combined (probably the only real advantage of the combined form, IMHO).

But look closely at these lines on the side of the type-2 body. Hold this phaser out at arm's length and sight down the body.

Without those lines, you can't tell where you're pointing. But with them, you can visually sight quite effectively, using binocular vision (ie, not closing one eye).

In other words, those lines are the IRON SIGHT for the classic Type-2 unit. Without that, you're shooting blind. With them, you can shoot pretty accurately.

Don't take my word for it... check it out.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Hmm....Rather nifty discovery you've made there.

This little exercise also led me to discover that both of my AA phasers need new batteries.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

aridas sofia said:
I'd like to insert a fanboy gush here -- I absolutely loved the organic, flowing lines of Probert's phaser design for TNG. I thought the notion of leaving behind a pistol shape -- designed for projectiles -- and adopting a flashlight shape -- designed to project a beam of energy (light) -- was inspired and beautifully simple. Though that form was maintained in the later redesigns by others, something of the beauty was lost. The later phasers were like Grendel P30s to Probert's beautiful SIG P232 . Similar in form, but what a difference a few lines can make!

As for the TOS and TMP pistols, it would be very, very hard to top the utilitarian and subtly retro lines of the Jefferies brothers original phaser design. But one design that might come close was never used --

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/frs-1-sheet-13.jpg

This was a Probert design for TMP that was bulked up and made more clunky, maybe because of the needed electronics. I like it the way it is here.

Enough fanboy gushing, Aridas...

Actually, I always sorta liked the TMP phaser as well (both the original Probert concept and the on-screen version).

Why? Well...

1) It made the "two parts work as one" thing MAKE SENSE (other than the targeting scope, it never made a lick of sense for me with the TOS units).

2) You get the "at arm's length 'iron sight'" effect from the side ribs, just like with the triple lines on the TOS unit. As someone who's trained in firearms and who enjoys popping off rounds at the range, I'm a BIG stickler for having something besides "best guess" to help you aim. And as much as I like the idea of having little LCD-type scope screen (which is how you'd present the TOS unit if you were building 'em up today, I'm sure), there are times you don't have time to take careful aim... you have to gun'n'run! So having some form of "iron sight" is absolutely CRUCIAL to the use of this sort of weapon.

That's what always bugged me about the TNG weapons... and the early ones moreso than the later ones. They didn't have a scope... they didn't have ANY "iron sight" elements. You simply had to rely on muscle memory and hope you'd get into the right ballpark! (FYI, this is my weapon of choice... 5" barrel, 40S&W, black, with tritium sights. http://www.springfield-armory.com/xd.php?model=4)

Yes, I've heard the "remote control" analogy... but the thing about a remote control is that it doesn't have to be directed straight at the target... and if you miss the target, you don't blow holes in the walls of your house. A phaser would tend to do that...

 

[aridas sofia]

It was no less a personage than Rick Sternbach himself that commented to me, when I was trying to come up with a logical TOS phaser 3 design, that sights would probably be as antiquated as the projectile weapons they once adorned. He noted the likelihood that the weapon would sense where the eyes were directed, and then aim the beam at that point.

And yet, I really like your discovery about the side "guides" on the pistol. Perhaps they could be sensors that pick up where each eye is trained, and if (for some reason) they can't find the target, the user can fall back on aiming with the guides themselves, manually.

 

[Captain Robert April]

There's also the ever popular ionization field that would muck up automatic aiming sensors, forcing you to fall back on the ol Mk I Eyeball.