Scopes of the PAST

[Don Fischer]

Yep! But people today want all the wwiz bang power they can get. My 30-06, sporterized 1903, has my old Denver Redfield on it, great scope. You would have to get use to pressure adjustment's though. I would not sell any of my old scope for anything. My mod 788 has my old Denver Redfield 1-4x on it, not for sale. I bought both of those scope's new in Kalispell, Mont. I have a mod 70 featherweight with a new Leupold/Redfield 2-7x on it. I've got several 3-9x on different rifles. I sight in at 6x and hunt with them on 3x. 7 through 9x has never been used on these scope's. Have and old Weaver K4 too. Have to buy a rifle for it some day! I would not have a fine crosshair in a scope unless it was a target only set up.

[liliysdad]

Like has been mentioned, those old scopes pale in comparison to all but the absolute cheapest blister pack scope currently on the market. Glass, coatings, technology, and manufacturing have come so far that using these scopes for anything but a momento is laughable. Being a Fudd for the sake of being a Fudd is silly.

[saint_iverson]

Hard for there to be a consumer market for a product that isn't offered!

A similar correlation could be made to vehicles - yes you can buy all the bells and whistles and BS on a car nowadays for a pretty pricetag of about $30k... But if all you want/need is the equivalent of a Model T (or plain chevy truck), it has to be made special - ergo a higher price tag. Does that mean the market wouldn't support it? NO!It means that car companies conveniently only offer products that wedge consumers into features they don't want or need for the sole purpose of charging another 10 - 20k.

[liliysdad]

I, and reality, disagree. Manufacturers are not stupid, they sell what generates profit. This data is gleaned through massive amounts of market research. If they could sell more units of a lower featured, and lower priced, item, they would generate more profit at a lower margin. The fact is, no one wants these lower featured items, save for a very few which represent a negligible amount in the overall picture.

The same theory is true in every market, be it cars, electronics, golf clubs, or optics. An scenario where this is proven is in firearms. Remington, Savage, and Ruger all manufacture low featured, low priced bolt. Each company offers models at a higher cost, with more features. If your theory held any water at all, they would not sell these cheaper rifles, instead "pushing" their customer base to their higher priced offerings. This is not the case.

In the end, no matter how a vocal few wail and gnash teeth, fixed power hunting optics don't sell, variables arent fragile, and new scopes are simply better in every conceivable way.

[saint_iverson]

A point of contention indeed! How much is of merit, how much is of hype? Anymore, every issue of GnA, Shotgun/Firearm News, Shooters, fill-in-the-blank magazine/propaganda is filled with ads and hysteria of these big and bad, latest and greatest, 500- 800 dollar scopes. They sell, for whatever reason, admittedly it does sell. To me, I ignore all of those ads as hype, I've read the thousandth article on why the AR is the firearm end-all, and in order for it to be "effective" you need an accompanying 1.2k dollar optic. This new era of firearms enthusiasts seem to eat this up. To each their own, but the industry (firearms, scopes, accessories industries) have left me behind, and because of this I am growing bitter to all of them. Another example - Colt shuts down the Python, Anaconda, snake line (among others) to prop up more AR production. Yup they sell, but they lost that portion of the market completely, and directly or indirectly, lost their tail in their latest bankruptcy.

Better in every conceivable way except for practicality and PRICE! Note the fact that the because lower budget rifles still sell, it PROVES that there is still a market place for the cost-minded consumer! But where is the middle ground between the $40- Tasco, and the $300 Leupold?

I've been left behind in these markets; I'm not happy about it, and I know I'm not alone.

[HangFireW8]

I, and reality, disagree. Manufacturers are not stupid, they sell what generates profit. This data is gleaned through massive amounts of market research. If they could sell more units of a lower featured, and lower priced, item, they would generate more profit at a lower margin. The fact is, no one wants these lower featured items, save for a very few which represent a negligible amount in the overall picture.

The same theory is true in every market, be it cars, electronics, golf clubs, or optics. An scenario where this is proven is in firearms. Remington, Savage, and Ruger all manufacture low featured, low priced bolt. Each company offers models at a higher cost, with more features. If your theory held any water at all, they would not sell these cheaper rifles, instead "pushing" their customer base to their higher priced offerings. This is not the case.

In the end, no matter how a vocal few wail and gnash teeth, fixed power hunting optics don't sell, variables arent fragile, and new scopes are simply better in every conceivable way.

Despite what you say, there is a market. Leupold still makes the fixed power FX-II/FZX-III lines of scopes, Burris makes Scout scopes, etc. You may see them as more marginal than I do, but the market exists, and is served.

I have some modern fixed power scopes, and variable, and even a whiz-bang tacticool or two... but nothing cheap, and nothing old, anymore. I've done my time with cheap scopes and old Weavers and Bushnells and whatnot. Unlike a fine rifle, they do not get better with age. I sold my 788 .308 with my last WRS-repaired steel tube Weaver on it, bought a Kimber .308 with a low power VX-III, and never looked back.

[liliysdad]

Despite what you say, there is a market. Leupold still makes the fixed power FX-II/FZX-III lines of scopes, Burris makes Scout scopes, etc. You may see them as more marginal than I do, but the market exists, and is served.

I have some modern fixed power scopes, and variable, and even a whiz-bang tacticool or two... but nothing cheap, and nothing old, anymore. I've done my time with cheap scopes and old Weavers and Bushnells and whatnot. Unlike a fine rifle, they do not get better with age. I sold my 788 .308 with my last WRS-repaired steel tube Weaver on it, bought a Kimber .308 with a low power VX-III, and never looked back.

Im not sure we disagree. I absolutely think there is a market..albeit miniscule, and that market is being served. I do not, however, think there is room for this market to grow.

[liliysdad]

Better in every conceivable way except for practicality and PRICE! Note the fact that the because lower budget rifles still sell, it PROVES that there is still a market place for the cost-minded consumer! But where is the middle ground between the $40- Tasco, and the $300 Leupold?

Price really hasnt changed..if anything, good glass is cheaper now than it ever has been. In years past, no amount of money would have bought a scope with the quality and ruggedness that the $300 Leupold presents. That same $300.00 in 1990 was $165, $100 in 1980, $50 in 1970, and $37 in 1960. Show me a scope for those prices in those years that was anywhere close to what a VX-2 is today. Hell, I dont think you can find a scope for twice those amounts thats is its equal.

I like old **** as much as the next guy...but in some markets, newer is better. In this case a lot better.

[flounderman]

You can buy a good used el paso K-4, for 50-60 dollars. I sell one for that, occasionally.

[TenTea]

OK, a fixed 4X ACOG may be the one for you, Mr. saint or maybe a Nightforce!

Does Trijicon make a BDC reticle for the ole .30-06 Springfield?

Buy once, cry once!

[liliysdad]

You can buy a good used el paso K-4, for 50-60 dollars. I sell one for that, occasionally.

Sure you can, and when you get done, you will have a scope worth exactly that, with poorer glass than a $30 Tasco.

[EDG]

That is not true.
The blister pack scopes are not worth mounting even if they were free. Paying money for a blister pack scope is stupid. Most are not even fit for a cheap .22 rifle.
I take it you never used some of the old scopes. A Weaver K2.5 or K3 micro-trac has long eye relief, a large field of view, is bright enough for poor light conditions and will take heavy recoil. It has enough power for deer and larger animals at long range. The adjustments are excellent and they will hold zero year after year. The only short coming is it is not really great for shooting tiny groups at the range, 300 yard shots at prairie dogs or impressing people at the range. Having the latest glass is not the highest priority for a hunter. Mechanical reliability is the highest priority. The glass that you hunt with is your binocular - not the rifle scope.

Like has been mentioned, those old scopes pale in comparison to all but the absolute cheapest blister pack scope currently on the market. Glass, coatings, technology, and manufacturing have come so far that using these scopes for anything but a momento is laughable. Being a Fudd for the sake of being a Fudd is silly.

[liliysdad]

That is not true.
The blister pack scopes are not worth mounting even if they were free. Paying money for a blister pack scope is stupid. Most are not even fit for a cheap .22 rifle.
I take it you never used some of the old scopes. A Weaver K2.5 or K3 micro-trac has long eye relief, a large field of view, is bright enough for poor light conditions and will take heavy recoil. It has enough power for deer and larger animals at long range. The adjustments are excellent and they will hold zero year after year. The only short coming is it is not really great for shooting tiny groups at the range, 300 yard shots at prairie dogs or impressing people at the range. Having the latest glass is not the highest priority for a hunter. Mechanical reliability is the highest priority. The glass that you hunt with is your binocular - not the rifle scope.

I dont disagree that cheap scopes are not worth messing with...but I tend to feel the same way about old scopes. My point was that the glass in all but the cheapest of the cheap scopes is better than anything made in the era of the steel tube Weavers. I have owned, and hunted with, quite a few old Weavers and Redfields, and modern low end scopes like the Nikon Prostaff, Sightron S1, and Leupold VX1 put them to absolute shame in every way.

With the plethora of quality glass at affordable prices available today, there is absolutely no reason to handicap yourself with obsolete scopes.

[HangFireW8]

That is not true.
The blister pack scopes are not worth mounting even if they were free. Paying money for a blister pack scope is stupid. Most are not even fit for a cheap .22 rifle.
I take it you never used some of the old scopes. A Weaver K2.5 or K3 micro-trac has long eye relief, a large field of view, is bright enough for poor light conditions and will take heavy recoil. It has enough power for deer and larger animals at long range. The adjustments are excellent and they will hold zero year after year. The only short coming is it is not really great for shooting tiny groups at the range, 300 yard shots at prairie dogs or impressing people at the range. Having the latest glass is not the highest priority for a hunter. Mechanical reliability is the highest priority. The glass that you hunt with is your binocular - not the rifle scope.

I should have mentioned this before...

I traded in my K-4 after I tried to line-up a shot on a deer and was flooded with morning sunlight. I went back to the same spot the next morning with a modern scope (late 90's Burris 2.5x) and had zero problems. I tried them side by side after hunting season and I could get much closer to the Sun with the Burris. Both scopes have very little rim ahead of the ocular lens. That made up my mind and the Weaver went.

Flare and diffusion on these old steel tubes is measurably bad. They represented good value for their day, were sturdy, held zero, and some are still serviceable, but they do not compare well optically to a modern scope.

[Rompin Ruger]

I have one of those K-4 fine X scopes my Uncle gave me on my first 06', oh... 57 yrs ago and it was well used then.

While I concur with the OP, on the foofourah on scopes today, I will add that the K4 Vintage is like looking thru a coke bottle compared to my HI-Lume Burris of 15 yrs ago... Still a fine scope, but it lacks the clarity and coatings that make scopes gather light and present clear images of some later offerings.... yes?

[EDG]

In spite of what you say about the modern optics they do not really make much practical difference in the field when hunting deer.
Spend $350 to $500 on a state of the art scope if you want but you are better off spending it on another rifle, a top of the line spotter or good binoculars.
AS good spotter gets used more than another other optics and next is the binocular. A rifle scope is lucky if it is used 30 seconds a year a way from the range.
I know one thing there is no deer that is going to make me spend $500 just because my scope had some flare when I pointed it into the sun.

Try hunting with 3 or 4 different rifles at the same time or take out 3 binoculars. You will find the old stuff works 98% of the time and 95% of the time you can get by with no scope at all.
Try a receiver sight. You will be amazed at how nice your rifle handles.

[HangFireW8]

In spite of what you say about the modern optics they do not really make much practical difference in the field when hunting deer.
Spend $350 to $500 on a state of the art scope if you want but you are better off spending it on another rifle, a top of the line spotter or good binoculars.
AS good spotter gets used more than another other optics and next is the binocular. A rifle scope is lucky if it is used 30 seconds a year a way from the range.
I know one thing there is no deer that is going to make me spend $500 just because my scope had some flare when I pointed it into the sun.

Try hunting with 3 or 4 different rifles at the same time or take out 3 binoculars. You will find the old stuff works 98% of the time and 95% of the time you can get by with no scope at all.
Try a receiver sight. You will be amazed at how nice your rifle handles.

I replaced the $50 Weaver with a $200 fixed 2.5x Burris, and some of my rifles have ghost ring or peep sights. I also modify the stocks for quicker mounting and pointing.

Everything I take hunting is optimized but not necessarily expensive. I took my last deer with a Burris 1.5x Scout Scope mounted by myself on a short Mauser. Total invested is $275 for the rifle, $40 for the scout mount and $180 for the scope.

So you're barking up the wrong tree if you think $500 is necessary, or skimping on optics is cost effective.

[liliysdad]

In spite of what you say about the modern optics they do not really make much practical difference in the field when hunting deer.
Spend $350 to $500 on a state of the art scope if you want but you are better off spending it on another rifle, a top of the line spotter or good binoculars.
AS good spotter gets used more than another other optics and next is the binocular. A rifle scope is lucky if it is used 30 seconds a year a way from the range.
I know one thing there is no deer that is going to make me spend $500 just because my scope had some flare when I pointed it into the sun.

Try hunting with 3 or 4 different rifles at the same time or take out 3 binoculars. You will find the old stuff works 98% of the time and 95% of the time you can get by with no scope at all.
Try a receiver sight. You will be amazed at how nice your rifle handles.

Rotary dial phones still work, Model A Fords will still get you to most of where you need to go. Neither of these makes any more or less sense than using obsolete gear when modern equipment is available and affordable.

[W.R.Buchanan]

Saint Iverson: Do you not want to take that scope into the field because it is not in good shape or are you worried you'll hurt it.

Either way I would recommend L&K Scope Repair to refurbish yours. The guys is good and his prices are reasonable for a complete rebuild. lkscoperepair.com 417-426-5041

I had him do a Weaver K2.5 for me a year ago that had delaminated lenses and he had the scope for a total of 14 days before it came back in perfect condition ready for another 40 years of service. He worked for Weaver and does in fact know what he is doing.

There are other outfits but they all have ridiculous lead times like 18 months? I question anyone who has a 18 month lead time because it is pretty obvious they can't get anything done.

Randy

I'd use that scope as it is not a collectors item yet and it is perfectly suited to that gun.

Randy

[Mk42gunner]

One reason fixed power 4x and 6x scopes have become uncommon is that the 3x-9x were being priced the same or lower. An awful lot of people don't worry about an extra few ounces on a rifle, then wonder why don't want to carry it any farther than a place to sit and ambush Bambi.

Personally I like fixed power scopes, for deer hunting I could get by with anything from 2.5 to 6x very easily.

I do like a Dual X reticle over fine crosshairs though. To many times trying to make out the fine crosshairs while looking at a Raccoon up a tree at night.

Robert