Hensoldt 3.5-26x56 and Spuhr incompatibility question

[brand692]

Can anyone give me the reason the Hensoldt 3.5-26×56 cannot be used in the Spuhr SP-6001 or SP-6601? Wanted to get one and on Spuhrs website it has a specific note that these two will not fit the Hensoldt ZF 3.5-26X56.

I assume it's because the distance between the tube and the bridge of the mount is small enough that the turret housing strikes the bridge before the scope tube seats in the rings, but you know what they say about assuming. But the height is the only real difference I see between those and the other 36mm variants.

 

[rhsc]

The Spuhr 4006 is NOT the proper size for that Hensoldt.

Edited in case someone reading this thread stops here and doesn't see the correction pointed out by the OP in post #4 below.

 

[308Gunner]

While I am a poor and don’t have a Henny it could be the way the battery compartment is on that scope, maybe someone that has one can chime in

 

[brand692]

I ran into a similar situation with one of my scopes. A little research shows that the 4006 is the proper size for that Hensoldt. Since it's actually 5mm shorter in length than the 6001/6601 it has to be the slight increase in height (4mm) required to clear the bottom of the turret housing. Links to illustrations and dimensions below -

6601 dimensions
4006 dimensions

The 4006 is 34mm. The ZF 3.5-26X56 has a 36mm tube.

 

[rhsc]

The 4006 is 34mm. The ZF 3.5-26X56 has a 36mm tube.

Sorry, got that info from a european scope retailer - they were bundling that mount with the Hensoldt.

I still suspect the issue is with the depth of the turret housing. You might want to contact Spuhr directly and get their word on the matter.

 

[VargmatII]

I know a guy with a 3.5-26 Henny. The issue is the turret housing (which is pretty big on that scope). The guy was a member at the same shooting range were I use to be a member. He has his fitted to a Blaser R8 but had some help (from Spuhr) to get some spacers done to get the Henny to work in the Blaser original saddle mounts. This means that in order to make a Spuhr one piece mount fit, it has to be on the taller side. The big Henny fits with the Spuhr 6002 and 6602.

 

[Hootiewho]

I run a 6016. The only place I had any issues is the rear throw lever and the battery compartment. Picture to give an idea of the turret clearance.

 

[brand692]

I run a 6016. The only place I had any issues is the rear throw lever and the battery compartment. Picture to give an idea of the turret clearance.

View attachment 7612021View attachment 7612022View attachment 7612022

That explains it for sure. There is no way to get that turret housing in reduced height of the 6001 or 6601.

 

[Hootiewho]

That explains it for sure. There is no way to get that turret housing in reduced height of the 6001 or 6601.

I would imagine the battery compartment would hit the picatinny rail if it got any lower. Just eye balling it, there is about 0.050-0.060” between the rail and the battery compartmen.

 

[Eostech]

Both the turret housing and battery compartment would be too low, the 38mm is about as low as you would want to go.

 

[brand692]

I would imagine the battery compartment would hit the picatinny rail if it got any lower. Just eye balling it, there is about 0.050-0.060” between the rail and the battery compartmen.

I can machine the rail down for the battery compartment, that part I'm ok with. I'd even be ok with potentially milling down the bridge on the Spuhr. I'm just trying to keep the scope as low as possible due since I do not have an adjustable stock.

 

[Sinned]

When I got my henny there were only 2 options at the time, individual rings or an ERA tac mount, and that battery compartment makes it impossible to use on a rifle with 90° bolt throw, atleast all mine.

 

[brand692]

When I got my henny there were only 2 options at the time, individual rings or an ERA tac mount, and that battery compartment makes it impossible to use on a rifle with 90° bolt throw, atleast all mine.

Well that's not good. Not instilling a lot of confidence in this purchase....

 

[SkyScrapin]

Why not run the EraTac adjustable? Works great for me on two different AI rifles.

 

[Sinned]

Yes the ERA is a great mount, just be aware with a 90° bolt throw that it may not clear that battery compartment. I have more rifles than scopes so it found another home though my daughter was not happy as she wanted it for herself, lol.

 

[brand692]

Why not run the EraTac adjustable? Works great for me on two different AI rifles.

Because it's going on a rifle where I need to mount it as low as possible and still clear the bolt handle. The ERA is very tall. I wanted the 1.18 Spuhr, but that's not an option.

 

[308pirate]

I run a 6016. The only place I had any issues is the rear throw lever and the battery compartment. Picture to give an idea of the turret clearance.

View attachment 7612021

Have you checked to make sure the rings are not riding in the radius between the main tube and the front of the turret housing?

That's a pretty big radius and you're clear on the back but it's hard to tell about the front side.

 

[SkyScrapin]

Have you checked to make sure the rings are not riding in the radius between the main tube and the front of the turret housing?

That's a pretty big radius and you're clear on the back but it's hard to tell about the front side.

The EraTac barely fits that area. I'll snap some pics too.

Looks like the SPUHR is an even tighter fit.

 

[brand692]

The EraTac barely fits that area. I'll snap some pics too.

Looks like the SPUHR is an even tighter fit.

I ended up throwing the base in the end mill and using Zeiss medium 36mm rings. it's as low as it's going to go now. The battery compartment is about 80 thou off the reciever and clears the bolt handle.