Rifle Scopes My Hensoldt 4-16x56 FFP Review

[DesertMonkey]

Re: My Hensoldt 4-16x56 FFP Review

Frank,
Thanks for the insight. But I find all that sweet ass optics package in my 4-16's.

Just wondering if there was a reason for the preference towards the 3-12's.

Cheers,
LS

 

[Three57]

Re: My Hensoldt 4-16x56 FFP Review

I can't seem to find Jason's review for the Vortex Razor HD. can someone post a link to that review.

 

[jasonk]

Re: My Hensoldt 4-16x56 FFP Review

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Three57</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't seem to find Jason's review for the Vortex Razor HD. can someone post a link to that review. </div></div>

That review would have been for the first generation, they've changed quite a bit since then including new reticles, 10 mil turn options and a more forgiving eye box. Look for more recent reviews than mine, they'll be more relevant for you.

Simply put, the Vortex Razor HD is a great scope and value.

 

[DDT]

I have had Hensoldt ZF 4-16x56 FF scope for some time. It is an old thread, but it could be helpful info for someone who is still interested. I "compared" it side by side with these well known scopes I had opportunity to work with:

a) SB PMII 3-12 ST/IL (single turn, no parallax adj. - fixed at 300m, illuminated),
b) SB PMII 4-16x50/P (parralax adj. only)
c) USO LR17 H59 (3.5-17x44) 2016 year made

all scopes were FFP and mil-mil. Hensoldt is the most expensive of these 4. All of them are great scopes with no doubt and be sure I am very picky of what I am looking at. What I have found on Hensoldt ZF 4-16x56 FF are my basic observations and experiences only. So, here we go:

1) glass: image quality and colours were nice and true, but had some distortion through FOV to the edges, mainly on top (above horizontal mildot line). Edge resolution was better on PMII and LR17. PMII 3-12, 4-16 and LR17 had more comfortable image for my eyes (3-12 has fixed parralax at 300m). Slight tunneling on 4x, the same on PMII 3-12 at 3x, no present at 4-16PMII, and worst on LR17 3.5-5x.

2) turrets: personaly I did not like them - not so good for firm grip (narrow knurled grip area), click spacing was too short for 12mils / 1turn on small turrets and marking lines did not match reference zero arrow marks (and this issue you can not eliminate with this scope, it was mentioned in manual already). I prefer PMII ST and USO EREK turrets because of their grip, clicks are slightly more positive and definitely better spaced for reading. Click step is 1cm / 100m (.1mil / 100m) on all these scopes.

3) parralax adj.: picky to set up - very sensitive which was not a case on PMII 4-16 and LR17.

4) magnification ring: better smooth operation and grip feel than SB PMII with rubber ring, but LR17 wins with no doubt.

5) build quality and finish: excellent and rock solid, there were no any rubber, plastic or soft material exposed to the user. Black anodizing was perfect, the same as PMII. LR17 had different type of surface finish - hardcoat anodizing, which has higher friction coefficient (lesser possibility of moving inside scope rings when mounted - you can use less torque on screws).

6) weight: lower than LR17 and adequate for scope with 34mm tube and 56mm objective.

7) reticle: mild-dot with range meter (200,400,600,800 and 1000m) all illuminated - better than SB 4-16 P3 which is too thick. I do not compare it with H59 at LR17 which is a totally different reticle. P3L at 3-12 is a little bit thinner than P3 4-16PMII non illuminated and looks better for me. I can say, both are very good reticles (Henny + 3-12PMII P3L). No visible reticle cant on each one was found.

I have had all these scopes brand new. Each of them has its +/- and facing to the question which one is the best is really hard to tell. PMII 3-12 and 4-16 scopes have illum. knob located separatelly if you have parralax adj. already on them, which take off some ammount of mounting space for rings / hide observation of position of the parallax adj. knob. SB 3-12PM II had no parralax adj. but illumination which was located instead of parralax adj. knob (SB does not make this version of 3-12 PMII anymore).

It is my observations with pro / cons based on my point of view only. I did not make a full evaluation report because of time. Hope this helps someone...

 

[Graywolf.260]

I like the later gen mil hash with locking turrets...

 

[DDT]

...have had a time, so I made an image / picture quality comparsion test side by side with these scopes today:

a) Hensoldt ZF 4-16x56 FF
b) USO MR-10 MIL ( 2016 year made )
c) USO LR-17 H59 ( 2016 year made )
d) SB 3-12x50 PMII/IL ( fixed parallax at 300m )

I have compared them all adjusted to the same FOV no matter which zoom mark was on each one. I do not compare them at min / max zoom ratios which would be "unfair" due to different errectors (4x vs. 5x) and zoom range (3-12x; 4-16x; 1.8-10x; 3.2-17x). Also keep in mind, that USO scopes have 30mm tube only and smaller objectives. Picture quality has been compared mainly on 5x and 7x magnifications (occasionally at 10x). All scopes were brand new, never installed. I ended up with this result, which first means the best:

1. SB PMII 3-12
2. USO LR-17 ( 44mm objective; 30mm tube ) - but very very close to SB PMII
3. USO MR-10 ( 37mm objective; 30mm tube )
4. Hensoldt 4-16

Hensoldt was the worst of these 4 scopes in picture quality. SB was the best with LR-17, both had only small distortion on edges and was very difficult to determine which one is better. MR-10 had small FOV, so it had to be adjusted to lower magnification, but picture was still better than Henny, and only with small degradation on edges.

I have spent a lot of time to find out the right head / eye position on Henny scope. However it have not helped much, picture was still fuzzy and distorted on edges, far more than other scopes did - distorted picture circle was 2-3x times greater. My second complaint on Henny is that its whole picture is very distorted if you move your head even very slightly from optimal sight axis. Parallax adj. does not helped, it is simply its attribute. For me, it is absolutely unacceptable at such expensive scope.

 

[mjh30]

DDT, something wrong with that Hennie to be honest, biggest eyebox in the world. I compared my 9 year old 4-16 last weekend with a zco at 16x and myself and zco owner found it hard to really discern a very noticeable difference.

 

[Flyingbullseye]

DDT, how'd you get the only 4-16 Schmidt that doesn't tunnel?

Anyone have any experience with the latest mil hash reticle Graywolf posted? How is it at low and max mag? Thickness?

 

[918v]

...have had a time, so I made an image / picture quality comparsion test side by side with these scopes today:

a) Hensoldt ZF 4-16x56 FF
b) USO MR-10 MIL ( 2016 year made )
c) USO LR-17 H59 ( 2016 year made )
d) SB 3-12x50 PMII/IL ( fixed parallax at 300m )

I have compared them all adjusted to the same FOV no matter which zoom mark was on each one. I do not compare them at min / max zoom ratios which would be "unfair" due to different errectors (4x vs. 5x) and zoom range (3-12x; 4-16x; 1.8-10x; 3.2-17x). Also keep in mind, that USO scopes have 30mm tube only and smaller objectives. Picture quality has been compared mainly on 5x and 7x magnifications (occasionally at 10x). All scopes were brand new, never installed. I ended up with this result, which first means the best:

1. SB PMII 3-12
2. USO LR-17 ( 44mm objective; 30mm tube ) - but very very close to SB PMII
3. USO MR-10 ( 37mm objective; 30mm tube )
4. Hensoldt 4-16

Hensoldt was the worst of these 4 scopes in picture quality. SB was the best with LR-17, both had only small distortion on edges and was very difficult to determine which one is better. MR-10 had small FOV, so it had to be adjusted to lower magnification, but picture was still better than Henny, and only with small degradation on edges.

I have spent a lot of time to find out the right head / eye position on Henny scope. However it have not helped much, picture was still fuzzy and distorted on edges, far more than other scopes did - distorted picture circle was 2-3x times greater. My second complaint on Henny is that its whole picture is very distorted if you move your head even very slightly from optimal sight axis. Parallax adj. does not helped, it is simply its attribute. For me, it is absolutely unacceptable at such expensive scope.


View attachment 7055563

You sound like that guy who bitches about this or that in his Leica binos.

 

[D_TROS]

Ive had 2 Hennys that were PHENOMINAL

that being said, I have heard a lot of reviews of either a bad run or something that have very very poor glass. Mind blowing to me as the 2 I had are still to this day the best optics ive ever had.

YMMV
DT

 

[jbell]

Ive had 2 Hennys that were PHENOMINAL

that being said, I have heard a lot of reviews of either a bad run or something that have very very poor glass. Mind blowing to me as the 2 I had are still to this day the best optics ive ever had.

YMMV
DT

Same here, I have had 2 or 3 over the years and still regard them as one of my favorite scopes made...

 

[Eostech]

Wow, old thread.

A big personal disappointment for me was looking through a Cassidian 6-24x72. I would not say it was fit for purpose.
The scope was not mine so all I'll say is mechanical and optical issues.
It was a let down because I was expecting a pretty nice picture.
If you really need to know PM me.

 

[DDT]

I only wrote what I have found myself on these scopes looking through. My eyes are OK, no wearing glasses. I have tried my best to share my findings only. I do not trash or blame Hensoldt / Zeiss company.

Henny scope has SN 4311xx and it is for service rifle (Law Enforcement). I would not buy it with issues I already mentioned for that kind of money. I know very well what I am looking for and how to maintain and operate the scope.

I have not added SB PMII 4-16x50 specimen to that 4, because it is sitting on service rifle already which I had no access when left my work. Personally, it is the great scope. It has no tunneling efect like SB 5-25 or USO scopes.

I do not think that Henny I tested is broken / fogged...it is brand new and came with genuine factory carton. I looked through it both sides and there is no any dust, fungus or whatever you think it should cause a fuzzy image. I can only speculate that it was not assembled right, but really, I do not think so. If you ever looked through HK G3 Hensold fixed 4x power scope, you could see the similar effect - center of view is clear and sharp, but when you approached image edges, then image is not properly focused and is distorted - this area is about 40-50% of whole image view. It is feature of this scope, the same as ZF4-16 I think.

Within a week, I will check the second Henny which is mounted on service rifle, and tell you what it looks like. It is from the same production batch with same SN, but only 10 digits earlier.

 

[Graywolf.260]

The mil hash reticle of the 4-16 at low/high mag. The sight picture and edge to edge clarity of mine are outstanding.

 

[Flyingbullseye]

Nice pics graywolf. What is the line thickness for the mil hash reticle? Hensoldts website blows.

 

[Graywolf.260]

I don't know the line thickness but the spacing is .2 mil

 

[Eostech]

Nice pics graywolf. What is the line thickness for the mil hash reticle? Hensoldts website blows.

Maybe 0.05MIL?
the 3.5-26x56 is 0.05
and the older solid mildot was 0.05

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/resources/hensoldt-zf-4-16x56-owners-manual.12/

 

[DDT]

so here is my promised observation on second Henny ZF4-16x56 FF scope I have access to. This second scope does not have "fuzzy" image near edges, the picture stays clear and sharp. Only one thing remains the same - distortion of image. These scopes have definitely picky parralax setting. It is very important to set (play with) the parralax adj. to find out the correct position, otherwise distortion of whole image increases when even slightly moving your head from optimal sight axis - this issue I have not recognized at any other top tier scope I have worked with.

There had to be some QC problems with first Henny scope at cleaning / assembling process I think...

 

[Steel head]

My shooting buddy has two of the 4x16 henny’s

While I’d like more power they are fantastic optics.

The clockwise knobs really bug me though.