Third Party Press

zf41/1 and mount

C

chaosrob

Active member
I have read where most of the repro mounts were more cast in appearance than machined but I am unsure of this one. Setup came off a numbers matching 1936 s/197 which I would not think would be appropriate for this mount and scope. The numbers stamped in the mount match the rifles serial.

I doubt my luck is good enough for it to be original but would like a definitive answer from the experts please. TIA
bf6pJP6.jpg

nd26GUA.jpg

NXWlx3y.jpg

5d9E2P3.jpg

c8PiW1w.jpg

JJUWDR6.jpg

NKCRrIT.jpg

e3KbMnH.jpg

YZwJDg4.jpg

oN0chc1.jpg

JegbPei.jpg
 
Your intuition is correct, your luck is not that good. None of the numbering is correct/ authentic. Post photos of the base rifle.
 
Sorry if I was not clear. I know the rifle did not come with it, the years dont mesh. Just curious if the mount and scope are original
sturmgrenadier said:
Your intuition is correct, your luck is not that good. None of the numbering is correct/ authentic. Post photos of the base rifle.
Click to expand...
 
Your scope and mount are original. Unfortunately, the rifle serial number on you mount is not original. Someone added that.
 
Serial on scope mount would - if original - be pantographed. Your mount had a stamped number. Therefore it was added at a later point and is not original to it. The scope and scope mount iself however are original.
Just to have it mentioned, the scope rail on the rifle is of course not original to it.
 
The scope is original, the numbers on the mount and base are bogus. I just wanted to be able to add something to the thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The scope is unmolested just the mount. I am happy with the amount I have in the purchase knowing that the scope is original. I cannot find another ESO for a comp but I am sure they are not cheap
ZF41 K98k said:
Such a shame that someone messed with a nice 'eso' scope! :facepalm:
Click to expand...
 
The roughed milling on the scope base rail made me giggle....was it hand done with a Dremel tool???? I am curious if the base was actually an original ZF40 base with flat rail, which was subsequently removed and then placed on this rifle, with a rail poorly milled out and fake serial number added? That or an un-finished original base?

Sad and interesting story.
 
kentomon said:
Thank you very much! Your data fits nicely to the group of early eso ZF40 reworks.
Click to expand...

Ken, what was reworked on these scopes? I was of the belief that the Zf40 and Zf40* scopes intended for the G41 then used on the K98k merely had their designation changed to Zf41 and Zf41/1 respectfully. What else about the scope was changed? If this is the case I would not classify them as reworks per say. Thanks
 
mdarnell19 said:
Ken, what was reworked on these scopes? I was of the belief that the Zf40 and Zf40* scopes intended for the G41 then used on the K98k merely had their designation changed to Zf41 and Zf41/1 respectfully. What else about the scope was changed? If this is the case I would not classify them as reworks per say. Thanks
Click to expand...

Hello Matt, note the base of designation "ZF41/1" is milled.
Another example here.
s-pic01(eso).jpg

I believe these types were originally marked "ZF40" and were then reworked into ZF41/1. My opinion is that eso is in the same group as cag, dow and dym. I have to update my Website on this.
http://zielfernrohr.b.la9.jp/zielfernrohr_048.htm

Or perhaps the word "rework" is not correct? I should say "re-designated" or?
 
kentomon said:
Hello Matt, note the base of designation "ZF41/1" is milled.
Another example here.
View attachment 214615

I believe these types were originally marked "ZF40" and were then reworked into ZF41/1. My opinion is that eso is in the same group as cag, dow and dym. I have to update my Website on this.
http://zielfernrohr.b.la9.jp/zielfernrohr_048.htm

Or perhaps the word "rework" is not correct? I should say "re-designated" or?
Click to expand...
Yes, the is the point I am attempting to make. I believe that all they did was change the nomenclature by milling out or sometimes merely lining out the Zf40 and re-stamping it. If this is the case then I would not call them re-builds or re-works since this seems to imply (in English) that the internals of the scope were changed when in fact the nomenclature was all that was changed. Hope this makes sense. Thanks!
 
mdarnell19 said:
Yes, the is the point I am attempting to make. I believe that all they did was change the nomenclature by milling out or sometimes merely lining out the Zf40 and re-stamping it. If this is the case then I would not call them re-builds or re-works since this seems to imply (in English) that the internals of the scope were changed when in fact the nomenclature was all that was changed. Hope this makes sense. Thanks!
Click to expand...

You could be right. I hope we get a definite answer. It seems like a lot of effort to remark if nothing else was changed. I wonder if the ballistic ring was changed since the K-98 ballistics would be different than a G-41 just like it was different on a SVT-40 and the PU.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top