Question about older scopes...


March 23, 2014, 11:22 PM
...I recently acquired a vintage rifle with a 6x El Paso Weaver (probably from the 1950's), and wanted to use it with the rifle, but in a field test it had a lot of glare (even in low light) compared to one of my Bushnell Elites. A few years ago I traded a Leupold VXII that I had owned since the early 1970's, because it too had much more glare than my newer scopes. I have another steel tube Weaver from about 1973 with no glare issues.

Is this glare a factor of lens coating, and is newer usually better in the glare department? Is the 1950's steel tube Weaver filled with nitrogen or some other gas, or just air? Thanks for your help...

If you enjoyed reading about "Question about older scopes..." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
March 23, 2014, 11:46 PM
More modern lens coatings are what makes the difference.
But I never noticed any big problem with them through the years.
Do you shoot into the sun all the time?

Make a cardboard tube & electrical tape sunshade.

The old El Paso Weavers were nitrogen filled.
But there have been a lot of years gone by since then for the seals to fail.

Or some fool to unscrew the rear lens to see what's in there.
Or leave it loose after they did.


March 24, 2014, 12:01 AM
Do you shoot into the sun all the time?

Thanks for the info. It was cloudy when I did my test the other day, so I was surprised at the amount of glare. I don't have any stands that look into the sun, but one in which the sun sets behind me, and that also can cause glare.

On another site (24hrcampfire) I saw a reference to the older Weavers being filled with "desert air", and wondered if that was correct.

March 24, 2014, 12:43 AM
No, even the A Model 3/4" tube Weaver that sold for $18.75 in 1967 was advertised as 'Positive Sealed & Nitrogen Filled'.

You can bet your K-Model was not filled with 'Desert Air'.
Unless somebody cracked the seals to see whether it really was or not!


Lloyd Smale
March 24, 2014, 06:08 AM
Ive seen more of those old weavers with the gas leaked out then ones that still had it. to be totaly honest your better off with a blister pack tasco from walmart.

March 24, 2014, 09:05 AM
If you want to keep the rifle period correct then the scope can be sent out for repair. That is cleaning and new seals. K & L scope repair or Iron Sight should be able to do that work.

March 24, 2014, 10:01 AM
Thanks everyone for your help! I will probably sell the K6 at a yardsale, and put the 1970's era Weaver 3 x 9 steel tube Micro Trac on the rifle, it should be period correct enough. The gun is a Savage 99F in .243. Thanks again...

March 24, 2014, 12:17 PM
An old savage 99 begs for a Weaver 4X!

March 24, 2014, 11:25 PM
An old savage 99 begs for a Weaver 4X!
Here a 4x, but not a Weaver, on my .358 Savage 99DL...

March 24, 2014, 11:59 PM
I have several steel WeavjUer in use and have no issues with glare.

March 25, 2014, 12:09 AM
Those old steel tube Weavers were as cheap as it got back then.

I take them off and put a newer Leupold or better on nice old rifles.

Some of my old rifles and their scopes from the top:

Kahles 2-7X
Leupold 3-9X
Leupold 2-7X
Zeiss 2.5-8X

March 25, 2014, 12:21 AM
I saw a 1966 ad that listed the K4 at $45.... Was that cheap? I wasn't around and don't know.

March 26, 2014, 12:23 PM
When I say the old Weaver scopes were cheap I should have explained that they had poor quailty and resolution.

Yes they were the low price brand then.

March 26, 2014, 05:43 PM
A scope that cost $45 in 1966, costs $329.79 in todays (2014) dollars.

March 26, 2014, 06:15 PM
I didn't think they were inexpensive.

I guess I must have got a bunch of good steel Weavers. I think mine are quite clear and very well made.

March 26, 2014, 07:59 PM
I have a K4 and a widefield 6. I like them both. Glass is very clear.

March 27, 2014, 03:42 AM
I have some old Leupolds that don't appear to have any coatings. I recently sent one of them in to be resealed and refurbished, and I also asked them to re-coat if possible. Their answer was, this optic isn't coated, but instead they used a process something like impregnating it into the glass it's self back then. And although this glass isn't as old as what your describing, (1980-ish) I'm guessing it may be a similar process.


If you enjoyed reading about "Question about older scopes..." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!