Where Can I Get My 1954 Weaver Scope Repaired
| December | ||||||
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
| Forum Statistics |
| Forums10 Topics36,439 Posts511,920 Members14,112 |
| Most Online462 |
OP  Sidelock Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 502 | 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 |
| | |
| Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,153 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,153 | 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. You can lead a man to logic but you can't make him think. NRA Life since 1976. God bless America! |
| | |
| Joined: May 2006 Posts: 1,079 Likes: 2 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: May 2006 Posts: 1,079 Likes: 2 | Nick Stroebel's books lists the various years |
| | |
| Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 502 Sidelock | |
| OP Sidelock Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 502 | 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 |
| | |
| Joined: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,881 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,881 | "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. MP Sadly Deceased as of 2/17/2014 |
| | |
| Joined: May 2006 Posts: 1,079 Likes: 2 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: May 2006 Posts: 1,079 Likes: 2 | 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 If I understand Nick Stroebel's book correctly, the Scopechief's were produced from 1954 to 1965, in 1959 they |
| | |
| Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 5,454 Likes: 22 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 5,454 Likes: 22 | 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. _________ |
| | |
| Joined: May 2008 Posts: 7,647 Likes: 75 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: May 2008 Posts: 7,647 Likes: 75 | 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.. When The Man In Black Comes Around- Rev: 6-8 |
| | |
| Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,153 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,153 | 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. You can lead a man to logic but you can't make him think. NRA Life since 1976. God bless America! |
| | |
| Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 139 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 139 | Highest prices do not always mean best item but here are some prices from the 1954 Gun Digest. B & L Balfor $65.00 Last edited by Herschel; 12/09/12 01:29 PM. |
| | |
| Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,153 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,153 | 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. You can lead a man to logic but you can't make him think. NRA Life since 1976. God bless America! |
| | |
| Joined: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,217 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,217 | 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. |
| | |
| Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 502 Sidelock | |
| OP Sidelock Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 502 | 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 |
| | |
| Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 74 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 74 | 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! |
| | |
| Joined: Apr 2002 Posts: 251 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Apr 2002 Posts: 251 | 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. Last edited by vangulil; 12/10/12 09:53 PM. |
| | |
| Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 5,454 Likes: 22 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 5,454 Likes: 22 | 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. Last edited by BrentD; 12/10/12 09:58 PM. _________ |
| | |
| Joined: Apr 2002 Posts: 251 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Apr 2002 Posts: 251 | 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. Last edited by vangulil; 12/11/12 08:51 AM. |
| | |
| Joined: Dec 2008 Posts: 639 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Dec 2008 Posts: 639 | 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. |
| | |
| Joined: Jan 2011 Posts: 2 Boxlock | |
| Boxlock Joined: Jan 2011 Posts: 2 | 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 |
| | |
| Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 5,454 Likes: 22 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 5,454 Likes: 22 | Mark, 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. _________ |
| | |
| Joined: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,484 Likes: 27 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,484 Likes: 27 | 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. |
| | |
| Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 74 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Jul 2007 Posts: 74 | 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. |
| | |
| Joined: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,484 Likes: 27 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,484 Likes: 27 | 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. |
| | |
| Joined: Dec 2008 Posts: 639 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Dec 2008 Posts: 639 | 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. |
| | |
| Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,994 Likes: 10 Sidelock | |
| Sidelock Joined: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,994 Likes: 10 | Didn't Weaver recently come out with a reissue of the old steel K-4 but with modern optics? My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. |
Where Can I Get My 1954 Weaver Scope Repaired
Source: https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=303506&page=all
Posted by: smithsheight.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Where Can I Get My 1954 Weaver Scope Repaired"
Post a Comment