Third Party Press

zf4 mount 9076

agentcq

Senior Member
I started a new thread for this mount.
I totally agree that for a square early/transitional base the serial numbering is wrong or to say the least "off". The font of the '6' and the '9' do match other documented examples, where as the '0' and '7' seem off, so does the placement of the stamping and the lack of the scope serial on the right of the mount.
Possibly a re-blue?
Possibly a replacement lever? Butt it is the proper early mid-bent lever.
Seeing that the overall finish etc. is closer to any original I have in my collection or have seen documented and not close to any reproductions I am aware of, it is IMHO the mount itself is original. I do admit that the serial number is either farb or field done. But I do need to ask, why make a fake serial number?
There are also other anomalies in collecting especially in early variants. For example, Weaver didn't document that early square 214 mounts were Waa on the left side of the mount and not the right. He thought due to the examples available at the time that all 214 mounts were only Waa on the right. We clearly know that this was simply an omission.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2231.jpg
    IMG_2231.jpg
    296.1 KB · Views: 86
  • IMG_2232.jpg
    IMG_2232.jpg
    295 KB · Views: 74
  • IMG_2233.jpg
    IMG_2233.jpg
    298.2 KB · Views: 67
  • IMG_2234.jpg
    IMG_2234.jpg
    281.8 KB · Views: 56
  • IMG_2235.jpg
    IMG_2235.jpg
    289.3 KB · Views: 49
  • IMG_2236.jpg
    IMG_2236.jpg
    289.8 KB · Views: 65
  • IMG_2237.jpg
    IMG_2237.jpg
    282.3 KB · Views: 81
Last edited:
Mount is original and not a early mount nor is it reblued. Some mounts just came out darker in color. Still looks phosphate to me. And remember that square mounts were used until the end. They are not just an early thing. Lever is odd but I have had some tell me these are a legit variation. Bands may be replacements. Number is definitely fake.
 
From these pics, I agree with Matt, Original mount...not known factory numbering, could be just about any option.

Now, from these pics, I believe this mount is original wwii blued, not phosphated. I could be wrong, and it would not be the first time. Thing
to note is the "Plum" coloring along the machined areas (phopshate does not do that), probably caused by surface hardening of the machined area when it was
rapidly milled. You see this a lot on 214 proofed mounts..which were blued. Maybe
a machinist can explain better.

The overall mount does appear to be an early Walther type, with the early style locking lever and the roll pin to hold the catch in place.
Yes, they did use square end mounts till the end.
 
Last edited:
Brian, yeah we have talked about the finishes before. Maybe they are blued. OP's mount color reminds me of this one.
359 Mount Numbered 2632 (1).jpg


Here are a couple of others that appear to be phosphate for comparison
359 Mount Numbered 709 (1).jpg359 Mount Un-Numbered (1).jpg
 
The "early" Walther ZF4 mounts I believe were blued, with the early type lever...at least the few I have seen.
 
Thanks for confirming the originality of the mount. I was a little worried and starting to have self-doubts about my ability to identify an original mount.
I purchased the whole set (mount, scope, cover and G43 blond hand guard) for only $1300 USD so I wasn't too concerned as even a good repro set with nice WWII scope goes that high sometimes.
 
Mount is original with original blued finish. Mount is early production/assembled as evidenced by the use of the "rolled pin" on the locking lever axis. Numbering is NOT factory done. Only factory stamped numbers, I say again, only factory stamped numbers appear only on early factory matching snipers that had dual numbered mounts. One numbered matched the receiver and the other matched the ZF4 scope. My initial thought is that you have what was an original un-numbered replacement mount that was field stamped when stamp numbering was still the policy, or, more likely, a post war stamping.
 
Glad to see my initial gut response seems correct. The stamped # font is odd for sure and not the typical garden variety type. But, hundreds of old hand cut stamp sets exist so its anyone's guess .
If you paid what you said you stole the rig anyways so it really doesn't matter... I could live with questionable stamps..
 
I wouldn't really classify this mount as "early." I would say the dual numbered mounts are early and this is a mid production mount. The rolled pin seems to be used till pretty late. So that is not exactly a sign of being early. The the two numbered mounts I showed above both have rolled pins, while the un-numbered has a solid pin. The early lever could be also be a left over part.

Most of the "field numbered" mounts I have seen were serial numbered in an electric penciled fashion. I would imagine that these mounts were done at depot levels as opposed to done in the field. But perhaps it was simple enough to be done in the field.
 
Good discussion here.

So much of the information we have is purely from experience. There is little actual original documentation out there on the G/K43 series of weapons. We may never know really what happened during this time period.

Given the mount is blued, roll pin and early style lever, collectors would tend to gravitate towards the mount being "early".....ok "mid" production too....LOL

Now, these "field numbered" ones are another discussion. The few that I have seem to fall into
a pattern (heck, even the same penmanship used), as if they were done at a specific location, during a certain time period....then they stopped that procedure...similar to stamping in the SN. It could be something as simple as the pantograph machine has not arrived/is broken...and we are no longer allowed to stamp...so, we will do this in the meantime, just to keep items going out the door. We may never know for sure.

Maybe others have more theories here.
 
Last edited:
All I can say is the earliest 359 mounts are stamped. Then they switched. Maybe someone was trying to replicate the early stamped ser # ? but didn't know to add the Scope # ? Who knows for sure.

Blued mount with center bend is referred to as early type. There is a mid and later type.. Yes a little vague I guess but its a simple explanation.. There are certainly subtle sub variations in between as well... Ill leave that to the expurts ! :thumbsup:
 
OK, some details here. Dual numbered stamped mounts eventually gave way to the dual numbered engraved mounts. Dual numbered engraved mounts ended in the "i" or "j" block. There are at least two known "field" engraved matching snipers and these are the ones Brian K. is referring too that were done with an electric pencil. Mounts then went to the factory engraved single number till the end of the war. What Matt is actually referring to is "transitional" mounts. This is a mix of mounts and types of pins. Early mounts are predominately square mounts, blued finish, with rolled pin. Very few early round mounts, blued, with rolled pins have been observed but they do exist. The transitional period covers just about every mix you can think of. Square mounds and a flood of round mounts with a mix of blued and phosphate finishes and the beginning of the "staked" solid pin. Examples of true transitional mounts would be a blued square mount with a solid pin and a phosphate round mount with a rolled pin, such as the example that Matt shows. In detecting these types of mounts you have to take into account the mount type (Sq vs Rd), finish type and pin used. Each item is a time period use. Individually, there is exceptions to each but when viewed as a whole it will give you a close time period. Both 359 and 214 inspected mounts have very subtle differences unique to each maker/inspector that takes a lot of experience to detect.
 
Good info Bryan. Yes I would call this mount transitional. G/K43 mounts are rather confusing (as are the rifles) and there is a large variety of examples. Numbering font/style is pretty consistent which is why I believe that the numbering in the OP is not original.
 

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top