Originally Posted by
W.R.Buchanan
Mechanically speaking newer optics are far superior to older optics. That doesn't mean that older scopes are useless, it just means that the manufacturing techniques used in making the new stuff are better and thus over all the new stuff is better. This is a perfect example of "Trickle Down Economics," or more properly "Trickle Down Manufacturing" at work.
Point being when new techniques are employed they start out making the higher end stuff better,,, and then the processes trickle down to the less expensive stuff simply because they are usually more cost effective as well.
Most older optics were designed to be a "set and leave it alone" type of operation. This was due to internal design and the fact that screw making technology was not as precise as it is now. Now screws and their design have little or no backlash and thus your ability to tweak frequently and have a reasonable expectation that the scopes controls will repeat is greatly increased from just 10-15 years ago.
As far a s the optics themselves, there has been substantial advances in "Lens Coating Technology" which has increased the light transmission of glass to new heights. 20 years ago light transmission above 85% was considered pretty good. Now even the cheap stuff (Tasco, Barska, Simmons, etc. are above 92% and the good stuff, Zeiss, Swarovski, etc. are above 94-5%.
In reality all this means is the new stuff is better than the old stuff, but it doesn't mean the old stuff is useless. As long as the lenses are not delaminated those optics can be utilized with just as much success as they were originally, and on certain guns are just as effective for their intended uses as newer optics would be. Plus that new optics don't look right on older classic guns.
My Weaver K2.5 that I had L&K rebuild for me will be mounted on my 1958 Marlin 336 .30-30. This will be a perfect scope on a gun I normally wouldn't scope but since I already have the scope, and nothing else to do with it,,, it will be a good match.
My Grandfather had a Win 94 with a side mounted Weaver K2.5 on it from about 1955 on. I remember the side mounted scope from when I was a kid and always thought it was weird until I found out why they had to do it. He got a Deer in Michigan every year until one year before his death at 95 around 1995. IE: He hunted until he was 94, with the same rifle. I'd bet that that gun never had even 60 rounds thru it. One shot a year was all that was needed. I know one year around 1958-9 he shot his deer in his back yard on their little 10 acre farm in Okemos MI, dragged it up to the back porch and butchered it and we ate venison for Saturday night dinner.
Things might be different now but not everything has changed that much,,, or needs to change at all.
I'm sure you can see my point here.
Randy