But why is the Weaver K-4 "the least desirable of all the scopes of that period"????
Yeah, I second that question. They seem pretty bombproof and more than adequately bright and clear. I've never used one, but a friend likes to collect them for his rifles. Seems like a darn good scope to me.
They aren't bad but again they aren't the best. On the examples I've used, the Weaver optics have DEFINITELY deteriorated over time while the Unertl and Lyman optics have remained clearer by a substantial margin. As far as being the least desirable, I emphatically disagree and would rank Bushnell and very early Leupold as less desirable than Weaver. IMO Stith, Kollmorgen and Redfield fall somewhere in the middle. JMOFWIW.
None of these scopes were waterproof and IMO their weatherproofing is iffy sometimes. For instance I've seen fogged-up Weavers and Bushnells and yet they were supposed to be weatherproof, while I've not yet seen any fogged-up Unertls or Lymans.
And none of these period scopes had coated lenses as we know them today.
Regards, Joe
