Hi Gang:

I have the above rifle languishing in a closet that I need to play with asap. The gun needs a period correct scope so I want to ask you people what scope would look great on that rifle for the period?

I have been thinking of a Lyman Alaskan, Kollmorgen,Redfield Leupold and last on my list is the old Weaver K4. The gun is chambered in the ubiquitous 30-06 and is in great shape. I want no more than a 4 power and the Weaver K4 is the least desirable of all of the scopes of that period. I think that Jack O'Conner always had a K4 on his Winchester 70.

What mount would look great with this combination?

What say you?

Stay well,

Franchi

Unertl 4x Hawk, in period Redfield 1-pc base. Use the base screws for windage adjustment since the reticle isn't centered. Miles above a Weaver and of a quality equal to your fine rifle. Buehler mount would be almost as good and was made with elevation adjustment in some models.
Regards, Joe

REDFIELD BEARCAT LEUPOLD M8 4X

Nick Stroebel's books lists the various years
that the scopes were manufactured. If you want
a scope that was made the same year as your rifle.
The Unertl Falcon 2.75x and Hawk 4x were made from 1950-1980
The Leupold M-8 4x didn't come out until 1965. But there
were earlier models like the Mountainer 4x from 1953 to 1960.
I like the Bushnell early Scopechief's which were made
from 1953 to 1965. I totally agree with Joe about the
Redfield bases and rings. The Stith, Kollmorgan, Redfield
line were marked Stith from 1950 to 1956, Kollmorgan from 1956 to 1959 and Redfield afterwards. The Lyman Challenger 4x was made from 1949 to 1957 and the All-American line from 1954-1961, the
Lyman All-Americans with the Perma-Center markings were made from
1962 to 1980. Lyman Alaskan's are nice but, it is hard to get one for less than 200, and then the rings aren't cheap either.

Perhaps a Boone scope.

The Lyman Challenger was the top line of Lyman hunting scopes in the 1950's. It has a 26mm tube. Finding period correct rings in 26mm may be a challenge. A Norman Ford Texan is a clone of the Lyman Alaskan and would be period correct.

Hi All:

Thanks for the suggestions!

I "found" an old Bushnell Scopechief 4X in my junk scope drawer.

This is marked Bushnell Scopechief and Triple Tested on the side of the turret. I have no idea if this is period correct. Perhaps someone can tell me the age of this scope. Sometimes one gets lucky! Lol

I had my heart set on an Alaskan or a Stith Bear Cub but this one will suffice for now

If I remember correctly, the Unertl Hawks were not weather resistant and did not have centered reticules. They may not have been coated as we have nowadays

I just remembered that I have an old Bushnell Scopechief 6X from the 50's. The reticule is not centered and it has much adjustments dialed in thus producing a very weird looking sight picture. Oh how I lusted for one of these scopes for varmints when I was young. They had a huge objective lens that had to be good!

Stay well my friends,

Zeke

"I had my heart set on an Alaskan"

I like the Alaskan a lot. If the range is around 200-yards or less the Alaskan is hard to beat. The reason they are getting more expensive is because it's a good scope and more folks want one.

I put one on my .400-Whelen and it stays zeroed. Low power and big field of view. My vote for the Alaskan.

If I understand Nick Stroebel's book correctly, the Scopechief's were produced from 1954 to 1965, in 1959 they
added the command post feature in which you could change
from crosshairs, to a crosshairs with a vertical post by
flipping a lever beneath the windage cap. If your does
not have the command post feature, I would say it was one
of the early ones, made before 1959. I believe Whitey once told me that some or all of these may have been manufactured by Kowa in Japan. I always pick these up when I can get them cheaply.

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.

I wondered also. On my 14th birthday, my Granddad gave me a Winchester M63- .22LR- 23" barrel and grooved top for scope- When I was 16 he had a older Weaver 4x 3/4" scope set up on it, and I used it, along with several other good .22LR's in the family- for dump rats, rabbits and squirrels a plenty. About 10 years ago I replaced the 3/4" Weaver with a El Paso steel tube blued Weaver 4 power 1" scope, and rings, and that has been on the M63 ever since- bulletproof, reasonably priced when made in El Paso (before Weaver went out and let the Chinks make some of their scopes) and well worth the money. Glad to see Weaver and Redfield are back in business-good quality in a market for hunting optics that has many "contenders" for our $'s..

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

Save your nickels or swap some stuff and get a Lyman Alaskan, and don't look back. You'll thank me later!

Highest prices do not always mean best item but here are some prices from the 1954 Gun Digest.

B & L Balfor $65.00
Bushnell Scopemaster 54 49.50
Hensoldt Dural-Dialytan 4x 86.00
Leopold Pioneer 4X 75.00
Lyman Challenger 4X 89.50
Lyman Alaskan 2 1/2X 69.50
Unertl Hawk 4X 52.00
Weaver K4 4X 45.00

Many of these earlier Weavers seem to have problems with the cement holding the (erector?) lenses together, rather than a fogging problem per se. Not particularly difficult or expensive to repair but a PITA nevertheless.

Most underestimated scopes in my experience and opinion? Lyman All-Americans and Perma-Centers. Slightly later time period than the rifle in question though.

I like scopes and have owned/used a lot of different brands over the years. The only scopes I actually seek today are vintage Lymans and Unertls since they seem to retain their optical clarity longer than the others.
Regards, Joe

It wasn't a rhetorical question since my experience with that vintage of Weavers has been excellent, but I've only owned the "straight tube" versions: J2.5x, K1.5X, 2.5x, and 3X. Wondered if the higher powered ones had some basic flaw or if they were just so common as to be boring.

Haven't used these in extreme conditions, tho. Lowest temp in the 20s and seldom in driving rain, either. And I always reserve the irons, just in case.

My own favorites of the period are Lyman All-American and Redfield "straight-tube" low powered, fixed scopes. But I won't kick a similar Weaver out of bed if the price is right, especially the K1.5X.

Hi Mike et. al.:

My beef with the weaver K4 scope and the other Weaver scopes of that period was the lack of a anti reflecting coating on the lenses. Other scopes were brighter and without the annoying "flare" inside the scope I would see if I were aiming towards the Sun. One other thing that I noticed with the Weavers was that while hunting in bright sunlight, I could see the reflection on my eye/face in the eyepiece. Very distracting!

When I went scopes like Lyman,Redfield, Kollmorgen and Leupold, I did not have these problems. They were brighter and more user friendly. Even the Bushnells were brighter.

Perhaps this answers your question.

The K4 probably outsold all other scopes combined in the 50's.

Stay well,

Zeke

I won't badmouth the '50's Weavers 'cuz I used too many back then, but if you are wondering what was wrong with them, take a look through one at the next gunshow.

If I were doing this project and actually going to shoot the gun much, I'd think hard about a B&L, although maybe in someone else's mount. The Stith Doubles are kinda scarce from what I've seen.

Have fun with the project and good shooting!

Thanks, Zeke. That does answer my question. I haven't used the old Weavers in real tough conditions or for high stakes/high dollar big game. Would probably go with "the Gold Ring" if I did. And a NEW one.

I had Weaver K2.5 and K3 scopes on which the lenses separated in the 1970's. Weaver fixed them free, but now that would probably no longer be the case after the various changes in Weaver ownership.

Vintage scopes may be fun to play with, but I would not choose them for serious use.

Would you choose a vintage rifle with a vintage cartridge for "serious use"? (is there any other kind of use?)

If I ever gravitate to hunting with scopes, I would certainly choose vintage scopes over modern ones, just as I choose vintage rifles and vintage bullets over modern versions. I can't imagine doing it any other way.

For me, "vintage" scopes stop with the Unertls and Feckers with external adjustments. Weavers are definitely modern in my book.

It depends on what one means by serious.

As I move up through my seventies, I am still working full time, partially to be able to afford a few serious, i,e once in a lifetime, rather expensive hunts. Since I grew up in the 60's, I may well chose to use a 60's vintage sporter. If I do, it will not wear a 60's vintage scope, but something contemporary that still looks reasonably correct, a current fixed power Leupold perhaps.

In recent years I have sent Weaver K2.5's and K3's off to be refurbished, and the resulting product really surprised me with their quality. I think they re-coated the lenses with 'modern' coatings, but regardless they are scopes that now are better than new, and routinely see service on my rifles. That said, I'll still stick by my predilection for Lyman Alaskans.

Gentlemen--I am not new to the forum, but have just observed and not posted much. Anyway, can anyone recommend a good source for vintage scope repair? I have a Weaver K2.5 that is "as new" except the reticle is broken. I have only seen negatives about Parson's Scope Repair (they take way too long and have lost scopes) and TK Lee does not answer the phone. Any help would be appreciated! Mark

The outfit that did mine in years past aren't around anymore. How about Ironsight Inc. ? (Google 'Weaver scope repair')

Mark,
I got frustrated and learned to do my own reticle replacements. I don't know anything about the Weaver Ks but I would guess that they are very user-doable. I don't believe they are nitrogen sealed units either.

Anyway, on the external adjustment scopes like Unertls, Feckers etc, they are very easy to repair. So easy that I prefer to buy the scopes broken that way to save a few bucks and end up with what I want.



Just a suggestion.

Gentlemen--Thanks for your help. I just got off the phone with Ironsights, Inc. and will be sending the scope in shortly. The price seems fair with the only downside being the turnaround time--12-14 months. But, they are about the only game in town for vintage scope repairs so I just hope that good things really do come to those who wait! Thank you again--Mark

The advantage of using a Griffin and Howe side mount or a Redfield Junior mount on your vintage rifle is that you can carry a spare scope in rings, sighted in, in case the scope on the gun fogs or breaks. I will never go on a serious hunt without a vintage rifle, but it's nice to have a modern scope in reserve.

eightbore,

Great theory, but turning the front ring into the dovetail is tough on scopes. Additionally, those front dovetails (base and ring) wear out rather quickly when used in that manner.

Good shooting.

BTW, is there a useful handbook on repairing old scopes?

With kind regards,
Jani

Should be no wear problem with taking a scope on and off with a Griffin & Howe side mount. What could be more classic?

Yes, I would prefer the Griffin and Howe side mount, but I don't think I would have much trouble with the Redfield Junior either. It isn't like I'm moving them back and forth every day. The turn in the Redfield mount on every one I have ever "turned" was very tight. By the way, no one asked Gary D where he got such good results on fixing his Weaver K low power scopes.

It was at the old "Weaver Scope Repair" service in Texas. (I'm having a 'senior' moment, but I recall that was their title, or something close.) It was run by a couple of old Weaver employees who had bought up a pile of parts and tools when the company folded its tent and moved operations to Japan. They have since closed shop, and if I'm not mistaken Ironsight Inc. took over what was left of their stuff. Somebody feel free to correct me if my memory is off.

I had four scopes done back in the early-mid 2000's, for a cost of $75 each. That, added to the $25-30 I paid for those junkers at shows and flea markets, brought them up to around their fair market value. Those guys disassembled them, cleaned them, in one instance supplied nice replacement lenses for a 1946-vintage K2.5, recoated the optics, replaced seals, and prettied up the exteriors- all in all a good deal for $75.

Didn't Weaver recently come out with a reissue of the old steel K-4 but with modern optics?