importance of "period correct" accessories

mainecoon said:

Just wondering how important it is to maintain "period correct" accessories on a particular rifle. Obviously you wouldn't throw a thermal optic on a Garand. But is it a sin if a 1950s rifle has a 2017 scope on it?

Click to expand...

I like to keep vintage optics and slings on older rifles as much as possible, but as long as the overall package looks right Im not a stickler about it.

I honestly care more about performance than being period correct. If a rifle has a gloss blue finish I prefer a gloss finished scope and rings, but beyond that, it doesn’t bother me to see a Pre-64 M70 with a brand new Leupold sitting on top of it.

mainecoon said:

Just wondering how important it is to maintain "period correct" accessories on a particular rifle. Obviously you wouldn't throw a thermal optic on a Garand. But is it a sin if a 1950s rifle has a 2017 scope on it?

Click to expand...

It depends. Is your gun for use, or to pull out of the safe to show people? If you use it, have the best optic for the task, it you look at it more than use it, spend the same amount of money on an old scope.

Bfh_auto said:

It depends. Is your gun for use, or to pull out of the safe to show people? If you use it, have the best optic for the task, it you look at it more than use it, spend the same amount of money on an old scope.

Click to expand...

Those are my thoughts. Optics have come so far in the past few decades that I can’t imagine squinting through a period correct scope trying to decide where my crosshairs are on a deer in low light.

I tend to think the accessories one puts on their firearms are highly personal and one should do what they want as long as they are maintaining safety.

I am probably about to put a scope on an Marlin 1895 CB. Love the rifle and wish I could use open sights better. Two eye surgeries later though I am thankful for modern scopes.

mainecoon said:

But is it a sin if a 1950s rifle has a 2017 scope on it?

Click to expand...

Not as far as I'm concerned. I need a new scope on my 1962-1963 Winchester (my first big game rifle) and I'm sure not going to waste my time looking for a 1963 scope. Instead, I'll put a 2019 scope of some kind on it. Or maybe a 2020 scope if I put it off until next year.
Another example is the pre-64 (early '50s) Model 70 I had customized - rechambered and a new, laminated wood stock built for. It looks just fine with the 1980s 3X9 Leopold I put on it.
On the other hand, I have a Shiloh Sharps 45/110 that would look really obnoxious with a modern 3X9 Leopold sitting on top of it. I don't plan on scoping it at all, but if I did, it would be with one of those scopes like they actually used back in the last part of the 1800s. You know - the ones that were almost as long as the rifle barrels they were mounted on.
But here's the thing about that - my 45/110 Sharps is a Shiloh Sharps - it's a replica, and my wife had it built for me as an anniversary gift just a couple of years after the movie "Quigley Down Under" came out. So, even though it would look really obnoxious with a modern 3X9 Leopold sitting on top of it, in reality, the rifle itself is not all that old.

I have two classes of guns. Shooters and collectors. I mean, my collectors are shooters also. But my ARs, my FAL, and so on have whatever I want, to shoot them as well as I can. The HK33 — for one example — is authentic bits only. And, all off them. To BFA and bayonet and so on, that I will never use.

So: up to you. If you want to be authentic, do it. And, no need to be consistent. You can chase down authentic bits for only one gun as a hobby, and do whatever you want with the rest. I won't mind

If it were a historic piece with known, specific optics--pretty much a military sniper rifles--maybe.

But, if somebody gifted me a 165 Model 70, I would not take any additional effort to find a Lyman Alaskan to put on top of it.

Where is would be tricky would be if I were gifted rifle with a matched-age scope--would I keep the combo together, or improve the glass? That's a harder call. We, in the Untied States live in a luxury of glass availability and choices. So, I'd be torn.

That is an early, might be El Paso Weaver K4 on top of this pre WW2 M70





I shot for group size, and I really don't trust cheap scope to track, they are not like a target scope which when a click is put on, the group moves a click.



But that vintage scope was dark compared to a modern scope, and once I figured out I had a pretty accurate rifle, I installed a nice new Leupold and zero'd it at CMP Talladega.



Vintage scopes look neat and all, but their optics are not as clear as modern scopes.



You can still shoot well with one

I'm not going to put a nice leather sling on an AR, nor a 3 point tactical sling on my wood-and-blue hunting rifles, but I'm not going to be a stickler for period-correct anything. They're for shooting, not re-enacting.

Rifles are tools for working. Whatever you need to make something work is fine by me. Old school guns sometimes shine best with a facelift. Handguns and shotguns... I try to stay vintage, but I did build a model 10 smith into essentially a poor boys PPC gun. 1970s gun with a reflex sight and a Safariland quick draw holster. I still need to buy speed loaders and bed the sight rail to the top of the revolver... it will get there...eventually.

As was stated, unless it’s for a specific discipline, such as WWII sniper rifle competitions, adding a modern scope to a vintage rifle is fine.

I have a newer scope on my Rem 721 .257 Roberts and I need to replace a Weatherby scope on a 1970’s vintage Mark V .300. While the traditionalist in me just can’t seem to stomach the thought of putting a red dot on a fine old double .470 NE, with older bolt guns putting on scopes with new glass technology works well in my book.

Stay safe.

There’s no objective reason to sustain “consistent vintage” outside of collecting or nostalgic replication. If I were putting together a rifle to satisfy a desire for a clone of a specific firearm, then I’d look to be as period correct as possible. Otherwise, it’s just silly.

For example - we hear the same folks say two things about leverguns; 1) leverguns are inaccurate, and 2) scopes don’t belong on leverguns. In my experience, many leverguns will shoot 1-1.5moa, but not many shooters can coax that from iron sights at 100yrds. So these foolishly nostalgic folks will cause 2 consequences; A) new shooters won’t try or buy a levergun because they think them inaccurate, B) they won’t try or buy them because they want a scoped rifle and were told they shouldn’t be scopes, or C) those who do buy them will be challenged by the same limitation of ironsights, and find them to be unsatisfactory.

For your specific question, 1950s to 2010s, then there’s really nothing terribly motivating outside of a subjective desire for military replicas to keep a consistent vintage.

If it’s a hunting rifle; no brainer. Absolutely silly to hinder yourself by using outdated scopes. Rifles might not have changed much in those 60-70yrs, but scopes sure have. The best of the best 60yrs ago will barely hang with middle ground optics of today. Competition rifle, same deal. Plinking rifle, same. Unless it’s a specialized replica or recreation, there’s no reason to tie your own hands.

The only rifle I've made a conscious effort to keep period-correct in this sense is my Wards/Heym Mauser fullstock sporter sold in the mid-1960s. It came drilled and tapped back in the day, so I scoped it with a 60's Weaver 2.5x in a pair of the classic stamped Weaver rings.



I found a copy of original ad from a 1966 Wards catalog that shows the old Weaver rings as OEM.

Dave DeLaurant said:

The only rifle I've made a conscious effort to keep period-correct in this sense is my Wards/Heym Mauser fullstock sporter sold in the mid-1960s. It came drilled and tapped back in the day, so I scoped it with a 60's Weaver 2.5x in a pair of the classic stamped Weaver rings.

View attachment 845592

I found a copy of original ad from a 1966 Wards catalog that shows the old Weaver rings as OEM.

View attachment 845594

Click to expand...

I have one of those I bought brand new. I also had a scar in my eyebrow from scope bite courtesy of it, one of the short eye relief scopes available back in those days, and a slick nylon jacket. The scar eventually faded away but I still have the rifle with a scope that has a much longer eye relief. I never wore that jacket again when shooting the rifle either.

doubleh said:

I have one of those I bought brand new. I also had a scar in my eyebrow from scope bite courtesy of it, one of the short eye relief scopes available back in those days, and a slick nylon jacket. The scar eventually faded away but I still have the rifle with a scope that has a much longer eye relief. I never wore that jacket again when shooting the rifle either.

Click to expand...

Heard that referred to as the 'Weatherby Eyebrow'.

If the rifle were to be used in a period correct setting, like; re-enacting, Cowboy Action, etc, then yes, I would keep it period correct. Otherwise, no, not necessarily.

I have a '63 Remington 760 in .35 rem.
Yes, a K4 in strap type Weaver rings would look period correct.

Have always hated those rings. They are ugly and when you tighten the screws the scope tends to rotate.
Having looked through some vintage yet minty Weavers............I take my deer hunting a bit more serious I guess.

Rare has it been an early morning or late evening shot. Most of my deer shot between 10 am and 2 pm. The Leupolds are brighter, and they have a great warranty.

My 760 is worn cosmetically and some grey scope/rings would have looked right.
But I am a deer killer first and foremost.

I went with an 80's era Leupold 4X compact.
M8, Vari X and VX1-3 stuff have a classic eyepiece and look.
While maybe not period correct, they are close enough.
And even if not, they look good to me.

Rings? Went with Leupold Riflemans. The scope was mint (paid $175 shipped off auction site). So didn't go w Burris Zee lows.
Medium w inserts, too high.

So my cool rifle is NOT period correct, the scope and rings do not match the overall wear/finish of the rifle.

View attachment 845615

I find it tolerable

BTW, the sling is an old Bucheimer.

Yes, I did look for a pre 74 Leupold.
Too much $ for the condition.
Have had some slug gun time behind the 4X compact and liked it quite a bit so said screw it, find one.
And I did.

Looked for a 28mm obj 2-7X (longer tube) for my #1 RSI. No luck. Went reg old M8 4X

View attachment 845618

Even on an RSI I like a classic eyepiece scope.
Think euro types, esp the newer with big tube type eyepieces......to look out of place on a #1.
Some folks use em. Think they look like something slapped atop, not part of a system.

To each his own.

IMHO if you have an ugly rifle, use whatever you want.
Aint gonna hurt the aesthetics LOL

May yet get a euro 30mm tube big eyepiece scope.......as I do have an ugly rifle.
But currently it wears a 1" US made conventional looking scope (but w 50mm front to use up the gap).

Hookeye said:

Yes, I did look for a pre 74 Leupold.
Too much $ for the condition.
Have had some slug gun time behind the 4X compact and liked it quite a bit so said screw it, find one.
And I did.

Looked for a 28mm obj 2-7X (longer tube) for my #1 RSI. No luck. Went reg old M8 4X

View attachment 845618

Even on an RSI I like a classic eyepiece scope.
Think euro types, esp the newer with big tube type eyepieces......to look out of place on a #1.
Some folks use em. Think they look like something slapped atop, not part of a system.

To each his own.

Click to expand...

Purty! I didn't catch the chambering on this Ruger.

Another old rifle ('70) w a 7 or 8 yr old scope. Looks OK to me, better if rifle receiver was restored in finish.
Brownells out of Gunkote I need

View attachment 845621

Have looked for another old Bucheimer, cannot find. So bought an Andy's Leather carry strap. Nice stuff.

Dave DeLaurant said:

Purty! I didn't catch the chambering on this Ruger.

Click to expand...

Was .243 win.
Got my first #1 around '78........a B model, in .243 win. Killed a lot of chucks with it.
Bought the RSI to have rebarrelled to .35 rem.
But it shot so well I just ran it.
2nd season I didn't shoot anything, all small.............plus it poured the opener.
Decided a full stock pretty rifle not what I need for hunting thickets or bad weather.
Sold and got the 760.

Eh saved me 600 (does not need rebarrelled LOL).

Leaves a space for a B model, in .243 w killer wood. No chucks around anymore, but I'd like to have a rifle set up in case this global warming stuff has them come back in plague numbers.

Pops has a B in .22-250. When he passes I'll proly have it restored, redone in .243 and just hunt w his rifle. It hasn't been blooded for over a decade. Closer maybe to two decades.

Might even spring for custom stock, spiffy it up.

I could have used two offset rings on the #1 to run my 2-7X VX1.
But IMHO two offset rings looks funky.
One ring at the back kinda sorta looks euro, so goes with the RSI.
And was not too bad looks wise.

If I come across a 1A w good wood in .243 I might get it.
The RSI w 20" bbl is a bit blasty.