Weaver Scopes

[newton]

I seen two reviews??, one very short one complaining about eye relief, but honestly his words were confusing. The other longer review mentioned two weaver models, the china one and the Philippines one. while it was overal a positive review, he mentioned it was like looking through a "fishbowl".

I have a couple of early Vortex (crossfire), bought them when they were closed out right before the crossfire II came out. I am very happy with those china made scopes, but they were low magnification.

Be sure to try your weaver kaspa with the magnification cranked to the max, in low light conditions...that when they will get cloudy.

But overall sounds like you are happy with it. that's a good thing

There are more than just two. You have to sift through pages of google, but they are there. I also looked at reviews on other kaspa series scopes. most often, a certain series of things will share similar mechanical properties. I figured turrets and such would be one of them.

Seeing how this gun is mainly a target gun, most shooting is going to be done in decent light. But, there will be the occasional varmint trip for it, including some squirrel action. So I'll get to see how it performs during low light then. It cannot be any worse than the Simmons I have right now, and I did do some target shooting last night with it after sunset.

I took a look inside of it, through the objective end. Most often if you turn up the magnification you can see the points of contact for windage and elevation. They looked decent. Looks like brass, and solid points of contact. I will have to get a stronger light to get a look at the spring, but if its what I am seeing it looks wider than most I've seen.

I am one of those guys who loves to see how things work. When something of mine, or someone elses, breaks I love to take it apart. If I were a rich man I would buy another just so I could take one apart and see.

[newton]

Its not dark dark out right now, but cloudy/rainy, and I just got done watching a flock of birds in a yard thats around 400 yards away. Pretty sweet. I turned it down to 12x to see what they would look like with my other scope(relatively) and I am pleased.

Right now my one unknown is how it will track, and if it will be repeatable. I'll try the box method spoke about with some good known jacketed loads I have. I should have saved the ones I shot last night to try it out with, but I did not expect this scope to get here so quickly.

Thanks for the conversation guys. It does give me insight for what to look out for, which was the whole reason for starting this thread. I know its not top of the line, or even middle class stuff, but I don't feel I got ripped or that I could have gotten any better unless I had dropped another $100 or more. Even then, it would have been a gamble I think.

I know the theory is that you don't "need" 18x zoom for most type of shooting, but its what I wanted and mid class scopes with that kind of zoom are out of my price range right now.

I'll do some shooting this weekend and post back with a better feel of how it is. I am hoping I can do the swap out easy enough without too much hassle in shimming and such.

[GabbyM]

No you need every bit of 18x to shoot long range. I have a Weaver classic 6x24 on my 223 varmint rifle. It works better than my old production 6.5 x 20X Leupold on my 243 Win caliber varmint rifle.

Generally speaking you'll find you need the sunshade on to dial it up past about 14X.

The annoying issue of how different size scopes work. Is why I end up with three AR-15 uppers for a single lower. Change uppers to swap scopes.

Any Weaver I've seen has the lifetime guarantee.

I bought two Burris scopes last year. When they arrived I read on the tag. Made in Philippines. Burris used to make a big deal about being made in USA. I guess not anymore. I hold nothing against the Philippines. Heck it was even a US Territory for a while. Just like to know what I'm buying.

[newton]

Got the scope mounted. I now understand what the one Amazon review was talking about with the eye relief. It does have a longer than normal one. You would be hard pressed to get scoped in the eye with this sucker. In order to deal with it, you have to mount it so the turrets are almost up against the front rings.

I was very impressed to see that the reticle and adjustments were zeroed from the factory. I guess you would assume they always are, but I've seen some that are not. When I put it on the gun it was dead on with the bore at a 25 yard target. In order to offset the very limited(in my opinion) total MOA adjustment of 30, I put a strip of thin duct tape on the rear ring. It was .008" thick and so it gave me about 8 MOA of upward travel. I think that should be plenty with the other 15.

So second first impressions, still think it was good for the money, but lacking what more money will get you(I assume). I would be really curious to see what the next step up would be like in comparison. It was dusk when I got it mounted. Optically, its fine. The eye relief does stink and you do have to do some searching for the image. Now, not any more than the other scope I had, but it does not have the quick acquisition like the Vortex I have. For target work it will be fine - great even with the very nice reticle it has, but it would not be a choice for a serious hunting gun.

I'll have to shoot it to make a final decision on how I feel, but maybe this will help someone who is contemplating one like it. Personally, I would not pay over $140 for this scope.

[JonB_in_Glencoe]

Thanks for the thorough review and good discussion.
I would have never considered a scope like this, but I might now.

[newton]

Thanks for the thorough review and good discussion.
I would have never considered a scope like this, but I might now.

I'm sitting on the fence with it right now. I got to shoot just a little with it last night and while it performed well, the whole eye relief thing is really a bad thing. I need to do some more shooting before I have an honest opinion. But at this point I do see the benefit of spending another $100 to get all the things this scope has plus the better eye relief.

I did test, in part, the tracking. It functioned fine. I didn't take it to its limits though. Because of the small MOA span I cannot see any application for this scope in anything bigger than .22 caliber. At least not if you plan to shoot cast and jacketed rounds.

I think this scope will do. But unless it just grows on me, my honest opinion at this point is that I personally would save up another $100 and look at something in that price range. However, it's not a piece of junk and is usable as is. I'll post more when I get more range time.

[FergusonTO35]

I have a Burris Fullfield II 3-9X40 on my .257 Roberts. Great scope, holds zero perfectly. 2015 rifle season here was pretty wet and the scope and rifle got thoroughly drenched a few times to the point that there were big droplets on the inside of the scope caps. Still, the view through the scope remained crystal clear no matter what and I managed to anchor a fat doe for the freezer. I think that is pretty good for the $85.00 I paid for it used. New I have seen them as low as $140.00.

Prior to the Burris I tried a Weaver Classic V10 3-10X38 and V9 3-9X40. Good Japan made scopes but clearly stuck in the 80's design wise. The main tube of both scopes was too short to mount the scope back far enough for comfortable shooting with the rather minimal eye relief of 3 inches or so, even with offset bases. Weaver should have put more thought into this. Without these annoyances the V series could compete really well against the Burris Fullfield and Leupold VX-1.

Been looking at the Weaver 40/44 series alot. These are made in the Phillipines and appear to be the same as the older Nikon Prostaff, which were really good scopes. I think the 2-7X32 might find a home atop my Browning BLR.

[dead dog]

I bought a 2.8x10x44 aspherical scope last year, the tube is too short as your v series. Had to get a rail mount for my 788. I got a 1x5x24 dangerous game scope for my 35 Whelen, it seems perfect for this rifle but cost 300.00 bucks.

[44magLeo]

If the turrets are too close to the front ring, get a longer one piece base. One with many slots for the rings. This will let you move the front ring forward. Letting you move the scope forward.
Leo

[Vann]

Sounds almost like that Simmons 44 Mag scope, that I mentioned earlier. I'm sure that Kaspa would work much better if it was in a lower magnification range. The higher the magnification the harder it is to make a good cheap scope.

[newton]

Sounds almost like that Simmons 44 Mag scope, that I mentioned earlier. I'm sure that Kaspa would work much better if it was in a lower magnification range. The higher the magnification the harder it is to make a good cheap scope.

It is actually clearer/crisper than the 44 Mag scope I have. However, how the 44 Mag acts on 12x, this one acts on 18x. So yea, your correct, its the upper magnification area that its true problems start to shine.

I have only gotten a couple days of range time in with it, so I cannot feel like I have a good enough feel for it yet. Moving from one scope to another shouldn't be hard, but the different eye relief does make it difficult. I do feel like I am becoming more accustom to it though.

I started looking at reviews of the $250 class 18x scopes. Seems like people like them, except for the eye relief......interesting. It might just be one of those things where if you want a higher magnification you just need to resign yourself to either put up with mediocre eye relief, or shell out the dollars. So I might have to take back what I said about holding off on this one and saving another $100. It might seem like if you just want to tap into the 18x world this might be the way to go. Providing you find them on sale. I would not spend $180 on this scope. No way.

It is worse in low light, that is for sure. But over all I can still say it was worth the price I paid for it. Turrets track well and are easy to adjust, cross hairs are very nice, the side focus is pretty cool and easy to adjust(my 44 mag had front focus), glass is clear up till the higher magnification(I'd say around 15x) but its still clear on higher.....you just have to find the sweet spot. I really wish I could have another scope in the $250 range to compare to this one. I hate buying something and taking it back, but it would almost be worth it just to see how they compare, and if the higher magnification manifests the same issues.

For what it is I can still say, without a doubt, that it is not junk. Sure, it could be labeled that if your comparing to $1000 scopes. But it does what a scope should do and is as decent as any other scope I have. I just have not had any experience with scopes with higher magnification than 12x. At 12x the Weaver beats my 44 Mag in many categories, not just clarity. Its to be expected though, the 44 Mag is roughly 10-20 years old?

[FergusonTO35]

As I haven't yet done much work with my .257, the most accurate rifle in my battery is a 1967 Marlin Glenfield 30 that, when I got it, appeared to have been kept behind a truck seat for the past 10 years. Wood finish scratched and peeling, about 50% blue left with a rusty patina, gritty 40 pound trigger pull characteristic of the breed. Bought it for $240.00 with a better Simmons scope installed by the previous owner and probably paid too much. What is amazing is that cheap rifle will flat out shoot! Average group size at 100 yards is around 1.25", the rifle produces sub 1" groups more often than it has a right to.

Ever since I have owned it the rifle has worn a Swift 1.5-4.5X20 in Burris bases and rings, I am currently saving up for a Leupold VX-3 1-5X20 to put on it. Yes, some cheap rifles deserve expensive scopes!

[newton]

Thats the thing though. I'm a firm believer in getting as good a scope as you can because your gun may be able to put the bullet into the same hole each time, but it can only do so if you aim at the same place each time.

My question is if I had saved up another $360 for the Leupold VX2 6x18-40mm(which would be the "cheapest" Leupold with the magnification I wanted) would it be worth it? Or, would I have bought it and felt it was worth it, not knowing any better, because it dang sure better be for $500!!!

To me, that's where the contention is. I know expensive scopes are worth it, but at what point are inexpensive scopes not worth it? For me, I think the magic number would be $150. I think anything above that price point and it better have the utmost reputation for being quality. For the lower cost you obviously give up some things, but I have proven to myself it might not be that much. I would have thought different because I was really eyeing a Crossfire 2 in the 6x18-44, but reading the reviews it seems they may suffer the one real negative thing I find with my Weaver.

Where I have no doubt that their fit and finish would be better, their controls would probably be better, and they have an extra 20 MOA of total adjustment - those things are not worth another $100 to me. Clarity/eye relief at the higher magnification would be worth that extra cash though. But, in the case of the Leupold, $360 is not worth all of that - to me that is.

However, if the Weaver should start to fall apart over the coming years then that would make a whole different case. At that point, the extra money is worth the reliability and the extras the other scopes may give. But therein is the same issue, who is to say they are going to be more reliable for sure?

It gets so convoluted. A scope is just one part of the over all experience with a gun. I honestly think it comes down to personal satisfaction. And because we are who we are, most of the time our personal satisfaction can be effected - even if its in a very small way - by what others "think" of our choices.

[Menner]

I bought a used weaver T-36 from here http://theshooterscorner.com/ recommended by another shooter at a CBA match (give them a call if you are interested that's the best way to deal with them he will have an up dated list of inventory) saved about $100 and you would not know it was used unless you really looked hard at it
Glass is clear adjustments are crisp and positive
Have a Sightron 36X they are in that $400 range good glass I am happy with both they are both target rifles
Tony

[GabbyM]

T-36 has been a good bench rest scope since I was a kid. Last varmint rifle match I shot was maybe four years ago. I need to get my life back. lol . Winner had a new t-36 mounted for the 200 yard scored targets.

Tomorrow my new Luepold 1.75 x 6 VX III arrives in the mail. It was on sale for $300. That's a big chunk of change for an almost retired guy with no full time income. It goes on my 20" varmint AR and it's Weaver 1x3 moves over to a new 16 inch upper. I got that 1x3 for about a hundred bucks just a few years back on sale. It's a great scope. Set on 1x it's almost as fast as the irons. Given I'm sixty years old and my 1 MOA days with irons was over fifteen years back. Almost as fast works fine.

[HangFireW8]

T-36 has been a good bench rest scope since I was a kid. Last varmint rifle match I shot was maybe four years ago. I need to get my life back. lol . Winner had a new t-36 mounted for the 200 yard scored targets.

Today's aluminum Japanese T-36 is not the same scope as the steel tube T-36 made in Texas. I have one and a buddy has the other, both good scopes, in different ways.

[skeettx]

I sure do like the old steel tube weavers, I have a number of the old K-4s on top of Remington Rolling Blocks
with a custom base made to use the original rear sight screw holes

[GabbyM]

Received some Weaver rings in the mail a couple days ago. Very disappointed in them. They are the Quad Lock line. Turned out these are made in China. They look good but the bore radius is large. They don't fit snug around the scope. To the point it's beyond just lapping them out with the 1" rod I have. So just unusable junk. The Weaver Sure grip and Tactical rings I have are made in USA and work.