Third Party Press

ZFG42 thoughts

A

Amberg

Senior Member
Hello,
some thoughts about the ZFG42/FG42 combination.

From the very first day I saw the ZFG42 in Peter Senich's book „The German Sniper 1914 – 1945“, I did not like the idea that this scope was developed for the FG42.
Why? Simply because it is marked with a Fl.number (Fl 52973). The FG42 does not have a Fl.number. Why should there be one on the scope? I do not know a single piece developed for the German paratroopers or other LW ground forces that bears such a number.
Only aircraft related stuff have it.

Now I found this:
http://www.reflexvisier.com/zielfernrohre


You can clearly see a ZFG42 as an aditional sight next to the Revi in the cockpit of a Me210. The photo was taken at Erprobungsstelle (proving ground) Tarnewitz in 1942.

Did some people out there spend big money for an aircraft scope?? ;-)

Thanks
Wolfgang
 
Last edited:
Amberg said:
From the very first day I saw the ZFG42 in Peter Senichs book „The German Sniper 1914 – 1945“, I did not like the idea that this scope was developed for the FG42.
Click to expand...

You could be right. Reading this report (Luftwaffe proving grounds Tarnewitz, Report # E6/17776/43 from July 2, 1943), there was criticism regarding the ruggedness of the ZFG42 design (page 6051), in particular the flimsy shafts for windage and elevation control which could easily bend in combat. From that, one could deduct that the ZFG42 was an adopted design, originally developed for another purpose.

I'm sure Pitfighter will get a kick out of the damages resulting from wear and tear tests. Also, the mags and accessories are quite interesting.

https://sassik.livejournal.com/342979.html
 
Last edited:
I love the first scope pictured on the FMG. It looks very much like a PU including round steel tube and very PU looking elevation and windage knobs. I would sure love to own that scope, not to mention an FMG42 in general.
 
At the time the question of a scope for the FG42 first type arised there was no proper scope at hand. The development of the ZF4 was not advanced enough. The ZFG 42 was originally made of aluminium (4V) and the later type 10V made of steel and brass was used for FG42. Maybe the 10V type was a deliberate conversion of the type 4V for field use.

I attach a pic of my ZF4 V scopes. The upper one type 60V is the one shown in the Senich book (I think so, somewhere is is shown) and the other one is a V69, ZF4 in the last development stage.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0842.jpg
    IMG_0842.jpg
    80.1 KB · Views: 144
Thanks for showing the GwZF4 prototypes.
But what was the ZFG42 initially developed/used for?

Another detail that I do not like is the abbreviation "No" (for number) on the mount. This is even more than unusual for that time. At least for the German language area.

Thanks
Wolfgang
 
Amberg said:
Thanks for showing the GwZF4 prototypes.
But what was the ZFG42 initially developed/used for?

Another detail that I do not like is the abbreviation "No" (for number) on the mount. This is even more than unusual for that time. At least for the German language area.

Thanks
Wolfgang
Click to expand...

I don't like the mount either for the very same reason. There are ample examples of German WW2 items that are numbered "Nr." instead of "No.", the latter being more prominent in English or French speaking regions.

I also don't have a good feeling about ZF4 scopes both engraved with "L" and "FG42". Since we already have -thanks to you providing us with info from actual WW2 documents- established that the "L" on ZF4 scopes denotes "Luftwaffe" and that the "L" marked scopes were to be specifically used on FG42 rifles (as there was no other Luftwaffe specific rifle the ZF4 could be used for), engraving "FG42" in addition to an "L" makes no sense in my book.

I compared my "L" marked ddx against a regular ZF4 and there was no difference in the number of clicks for the elevation controls and the reticles seemed to move the same amount as the dials were turned from 1 - 8 (unless my "L" marked ZF4 is a good fake...). If there is a difference in the elevation lobes to accommodate for different trajectories, it must be very small. The only difference between a regular ZF4 and an "L" marked ZF4 could be more rugged internals as the reports you have mentioned discussed potential damage to internal scope parts due to higher shock loads (acceleration) when used with FG42.
 
GunKraut said:
I also don't have a good feeling about ZF4 scopes both engraved with "L" and "FG42". Since we already have -thanks to you providing us with info from actual WW2 documents- established that the "L" on ZF4 scopes denotes "Luftwaffe" and that the "L" marked scopes were to be specifically used on FG42 rifles (as there was no other Luftwaffe specific rifle the ZF4 could be used for), engraving "FG42" in addition to an "L" makes no sense in my book.
Click to expand...

Never thought about these. You are right, it does not make any sense!

GunKraut said:
I compared my "L" marked ddx against a regular ZF4 and there was no difference in the number of clicks for the elevation controls and the reticles seemed to move the same amount as the dials were turned from 1 - 8 (unless my "L" marked ZF4 is a good fake...). If there is a difference in the elevation lobes to accommodate for different trajectories, it must be very small. The only difference between a regular ZF4 and an "L" marked ZF4 could be more rugged internals as the reports you have mentioned discussed potential damage to internal scope parts due to higher shock loads (acceleration) when used with FG42.
Click to expand...

I got two "ddx L" from a former Voigtländer employee back in the early 1980's. I'll compare the settings of the elevation drum with a regular GwZF4, when I'm back home on Thursday.

Thanks
Wolfgang
 
I also don't have a good feeling about ZF4 scopes both engraved with "L" and "FG42". Since we already have -thanks to you providing us with info from actual WW2 documents- established that the "L" on ZF4 scopes denotes "Luftwaffe" and that the "L" marked scopes were to be specifically used on FG42 rifles

Of course it makes sense. The engraving was made after the scope was mated with the rifle. Same was the case with early ZF39 (Ajack SS) scopes. Sometimes there are also gun numbers electropencilled on ZF4 scopes.
 
Most of you know that I'm not one of those WWII sniper collectors. I only collect true sniper rifles and scopes.
German WWI Gew. 98 snipers!
The scoped K98k is by no means a sniper rifle. Dave will hate me for this, but it's the truth! ;-)
Not to talk about the G/K43.
I only wanted to point out my concerns, founded on recently located documents and my personal observations.
Thanks
Wolfgang
 
Nigromontanus said:

Of course it makes sense. The engraving was made after the scope was mated with the rifle. Same was the case with early ZF39 (Ajack SS) scopes. Sometimes there are also gun numbers electropencilled on ZF4 scopes.
Click to expand...


It does not make sense to mention (engrave) the type of rifle!
Do you know of any (original) scope marked to a K98k, or Gew.98?
I'm not talking about the serial#, but about the type of rifle.
 
Amberg said:
Do you know of any (original) scope marked to a K98k, or Gew.98?
Click to expand...


BTW: yes there is one!
The army requested a different inscription on their GwZF4.
I assume that it is the "K43" on ddx scopes and the "ZFK43" on dow scopes.
But that's it.
 
Amberg said:
Most of you know that I'm not one of those WWII sniper collectors. I only collect true sniper rifles and scopes.
German WWI Gew. 98 snipers!
The scoped K98k is by no means a sniper rifle. Dave will hate me for this, but it's the truth! ;-)
Not to talk about the G/K43.
I only wanted to point out my concerns, founded on recently located documents and my personal observations.
Thanks
Wolfgang
Click to expand...

:googlie Thats a Racist Comment !!!!!!!
 
Nigromontanus said:
And yes, I have also one of these. It is original.
Click to expand...

I do not like the inscription.
Have a close look at the size of the numbers of the scope's serial#. The "4" and the "7" are higher/bigger than the others. The bottom of the "Gw" is not in line.
Need to compare that with my scopes when I'm back home.
PS: the "ddx" looks strange. The "FG42 Nr.0134" has full paint, but the askew triangle has no paint left. ???
 
Last edited:
Amberg said:
I do not like the inscription.
Have a close look at the size of the numbers of the scope's serial#. The "4" and the "7" are higher/bigger than the others. The bottom of the "Gw" is not in line.
Need to compare that with my scopes when I'm back home.
PS: the "ddx" looks strange. The "FG42 Nr.0134" has full paint, but the askew triangle has no paint left. ???
Click to expand...

There is variation to how ZF4 scopes where marked. Here are some other examples showing how different it can be. I can't comment on the FG42 markings, but I see no issues with the scope serial number and ddx.

214 Mount Un-numbered (5).jpg359 Mount Numbered 709 (5).jpg359 Mount Numbered 8509 (4).jpg359 Mount Un-Numbered (4).jpg
 
After last month's ZF4 "Kurz Patrone" debacle anybody should be worried about any application-specific engraving done to ZF4 scopes. Half an hour of welding and engraving turned a $400 post-war, run of the mill Meopta scope into a $5,600 WW2 Voigtlander collectible. Some of the known FG42 and ZFG42 scopes originated from the Sturgess collection. Does this equate COA? You be the judge. Good people have been fooled into publishing books confusing home made rigs with authentic snipers, declaring fantasy ZF41 rear sight scope attachments to be rare original field mounts, the list goes on.

Only a compilation of serial numbers of "L" marked ZF4 and among those, a serial number compilation of "L" and "FG42" scopes will tell us if the scopes have a chance of being authentic or if BillyJoeBob, Pavel and Wassily just got a handsome payout from a trusty collector for 30 minutes of "job well done".
 
GunKraut said:
Some of the known FG42 and ZFG42 scopes originated from the Sturgess collection. Does this equate COA? You be the judge.
Click to expand...

I bought a Gewehr 98 sniper rifle from the Sturgess collection, and I'm not very happy having it in my collection!
Might be ok, but I have some concerns.
 
Amberg said:
I got two "ddx L" from a former Voigtländer employee back in the early 1980's. I'll compare the settings of the elevation drum with a regular GwZF4, when I'm back home on Thursday.
Click to expand...

I compared the range markings on my ddx L # 54757 with

ddx #50486
ddx K43 #71048
dow ZFK43 #49260

They all seem to be identical.

The markings on the ddx L look even worse than on the FG42 scope.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4952.jpg
    IMG_4952.jpg
    305.1 KB · Views: 58
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top