Third Party Press

Zf4 rig authentic?

Joseph Burke

Senior Member
I picked this up off eBay. You guys may have seen or watched the auction. I thought a decent buy at $810 considering it does have a nice original zf4 to boot. Seller claims the mount is original but the locking lever/bolt/spring/and release button are replacements and he stated so in the listing. Mount is 359 acceptance marked but unnumbered. I do have a couple original numbered 359 marked mounts already and so far I think the mount is legit , but that’s why I’m asking for input from this knowledgeable group. Mounts are tricky business. So, does the mount itself look original? Although not the main reason I bought it that sunshade might have possibilities too. Although the zf4 wasn’t properly mounted in these images I have since fixed that and the mount fits like a glove on my K43....and the sunshade fits as it should too. Thoughts?
5634b3b69172d2f0ff4ea75fbfebab14.jpg
8234fbede69203dba35b90ce211a8120.jpg
2c1f2116bce355e19facb0b2eb84522c.jpg
98797e6b4ed493dcd6b74276ad5a2c7e.jpg
aae72328d12ef42f2e506e7e18c65dc9.jpg
a85ba9ccfb418f829e6eeaa1d5b52a30.jpg
8f2d183072c1df4fa591985be3edfef0.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

mdarnell19

Beavis Moderator Intern
This is a tough one. My initial thought is it is an original scope mount. It looks like it might have had some bad pitting and someone refinished it. The color and texture of the mount are off but overall shape is correct. I think it might have been numbered. I see what looks the remanents of a 4.

It’s either that or a very close fake.
 

agentcq

Senior Member
I am leaning towards an original mount that has been re-parkerized. The sun shade, at least one band and the mount have evidence of corrosion and perhaps the original rifle number was removed or is corroded off, but the finish on all three is almost mint. With the replacement parts and the mint finish, I would say 'yes original' but 'restored/refinished'. Just my honest opinion but still a good buy with the scope. A repro mount and original scope sold yesterday on Ebay for $750 so you still did well.
 
Last edited:

Joseph Burke

Senior Member
When I saw this auction, my gut was that it was a ground dug/ relic mount with replaced bits. I still feel this is the case.

It isn’t in relic condition, but rather has a slightly more pitted surface that the other two originals that I have, which also have Walther acceptance stamps and are of the same late war design. It also hasn’t had any grinding anywhere—no numbers have been ground off——it has never been serialized. One knowledgeable person has suggested that it was a previously rejected mount because of the pitting but later put into service very late in the war. That is a very logical reasoning and serves to explain the lack of a serial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rpf2697

Senior Member
The mount is authentic....I'd say it was re-finished post war. It is a "rejected" mount pushed into service late in the war. MP
 

sturmgrenadier

Senior Member
How does the addition of repop parts to an authentic mount signal late war expediency? Late war / rejected mounts may have a mix of characterstics, but one thing is for sure, they'd have original parts. I stated that the base mount was original, that wasn't at issue to me; my concern was the sellers disclosure of the added reproduction parts to make it whole. I don't consider it an insult to say it may be a ground dug/ relic mount, it's my opinion. There is an authentic original mount sitting on eBay right now for 200$, it's intact, and missing the very same items your mount has had replaced. The crude finish of a zf4 mount, by nature, would lend itself to media blasting/ stripping without damaging the metal's original rough surface.
 

mdarnell19

Beavis Moderator Intern
I don't believe this scope mount was used on a rifle. It would have been numbered to a rifle had it been issued with one. This was the practice until the very end of production. Unnumbered mounts are merely mounts captured at the factory before being fitted to rifles. I have even seen scope mounts that were sent to the field as replacements (which is what everyone thinks their unnumbered mount is) and these were numbered to rifles in an electric pencil type fashion.

As a general rule, German practice was to number scope mounts and/or scopes to the rifle they were being fitted to.
 
Last edited:

agentcq

Senior Member
How does the addition of repop parts to an authentic mount signal late war expediency? Late war / rejected mounts may have a mix of characterstics, but one thing is for sure, they'd have original parts. I stated that the base mount was original, that wasn't at issue to me; my concern was the sellers disclosure of the added reproduction parts to make it whole. I don't consider it an insult to say it may be a ground dug/ relic mount, it's my opinion. There is an authentic original mount sitting on eBay right now for 200$, it's intact, and missing the very same items your mount has had replaced. The crude finish of a zf4 mount, by nature, would lend itself to media blasting/ stripping without damaging the metal's original rough surface.

You wouldn't have a link to this auction would you?

Still a nice mount even if refinished, especially as the purchaser has some other nice original mount sets. This stuff just isn't getting easy or cheap to find. I know there are multiple 'elite' collectors on this forum that only have 'mint crisp' examples within their collection, but I am always about having good representatives that perhaps can be improved upon later. Way nicer than a repro mount by far!!!!
 

GunKraut

Senior Member
Unless it has been ground dug and heavily refinished, I'm leaning towards good repro. It has rough spots were you should see milling and drilling marks.
Wouldn't use this one as it appears cracked around the threaded screw hole in the bottom.
 

Joseph Burke

Senior Member
It’s not a reproduction as it is IDENTICAL in every way, less the slightly rougher casting (I assume they were cast) and being serialized, to my other two original Walther marked late war mounts. Since we don’t really know I suppose we can all guess. It could have been ground dug but there is no notable corrosion anywhere along the mount area nor anywhere else really. We all know that there were unnumbered original mounts issued wartime. It is just a rougher casting and I think the suggestion that it might have been rejected initially is logical but it could serve as field replacement....or it could have been captured at the end of the war and unissued. ??? As for the hardware, which isn’t very old, I think the possibility exists that the original hardware might have been replaced because the originals were somehow damaged or lost. People do silly things. It’s all just speculation but I would never question its authenticity—-there are no reproductions anywhere close to this.
To follow up, the seller told me today that it had a different type of lever, which was “in the white” and was waffenamted but he though not original, than the typical mount when he acquired it 30 years ago and he simply replaced it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

tsmgguy

Senior Member
Didn't read all the way through all of the responses, but I believe this mount is a repro. The originals were forged and finish milled. This one appears to have been roughly sand cast. You can see inclusions in the metal that an original forging wouldn't have. Most other parts appear to be repros. The front sun shade does appear to be a badly corroded original.
 

Joseph Burke

Senior Member
Original G43 scope mounts were all cast.

The receivers were forged.

Thank you, Brian. I just placed this questioned mount beside my original serialized 359 marked mount for a close examination and they are identical to include the exact same height and those little holes in each end that are somewhat hidden behind the scope bands. I have never seen a reproduction yet with those. As the original poster and doing my own research I am convinced it is an original mount. Maybe I want to believe it is original, thus a bit biased, but everything about the mount suggests it is original, less the hardware, and the slightly rougher casting is the only difference I can see. Even Claus’ G43 information and Darrin Weaver’s book show some examples with rougher castings as well as unnumbered examples. As stated, I am convinced it is original and others can second guess indefinitely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Military Rifle Journal
Top