New tech on old rifles?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll be the first to admit,,,
A modern side focus tactical scope,,,
looks a bit out of place on an older Nylon 66.

But if that's what you have, want or need,,,
Go for it.

A while back I purchased an older (50's maybe) Western Field .22 single-shot,,,
I tried to find an affordable scope that looked to be from the same period.

I couldn't find one so I slapped a new blister-pack 4X Simmons on it,,,
View attachment 952207
They don't match up all that well but who really cares.

The rifle shoots less than an inch at 50 yards,,,
That's what really counts.

Here's an even odder one for you.

I have an H&R .22 Sportster break-open action rifle,,,
Mounting any scope on it is difficult because they all hit the hammer.

So I mounted a tubular red dot on it,,,
View attachment 952206
This is one odd looking rig,,,
But now the rifle is very usable.

Most people chuckle when they see it,,,
But they don't laugh at the groups it shoots,,,
It's now a "minute of soup can" rifle at 100 yards.

So even as much as I do appreciate the aesthetics of a well matched rig,,,
At the center of things is what you have on hand or can afford,,,
And how well they perform together that counts.

Aarond

.
This appeals to my practical sensibilities, but a prismatic compact scope might work in the same spot. I like em to look nice, but it's hard to argue with results...
 
My 22 hornet handi-rifle had a scope on it. The factory hammer had one of those side extensions put on it. Nothing hit the scope though. Just couldnt access the hammer. Ive since removed the scope and hammer extension. I can hit 8" gongs at 100 yds with the iron sights. No need for a scope!
I stuck a Burris variable on my Handi-Hornet using the factory unitized mount/ring set, which put it high enough to leave plenty of room to operate the hammer. I Kilbourned the chamber -- it's a great shooter!

HandiRifleHornet.jpg
 
This appeals to my practical sensibilities, but a prismatic compact scope might work in the same spot. I like em to look nice, but it's hard to argue with results..

I have a "reflex" style optic mounted on a NEOS pistol,,,
I put that on the H&R Sportster and yes, it was much more aesthetically pleasing.

The problem was that the tubular optic,,,
Wouldn't fit the rails of the NEOS,,,
So it went back on the H&R.

Just this morning I was at Academy,,,
They had a smaller reflex for under $40.00,,,
So I might buy one and give it a try on the H&R.

It's Academy,,,
I can always return it if I don't like it.

Aarond

.
 
But other rigs and combos are too fixed in time and memories to ever change, and this absolute Weatherby .257 Mag with B&L Balvar 8. Which in the 1950's was the stuff of boyhood daydreams, and remains my favorite pronghorn rig, unchanged View attachment 952201

I used a B&L Balvar 8 for a time back in the 1960's and it was indeed a great scope. I was hunting a lot of coyotes at the time and just to think of that Balvar 8 brings back fond memories. I know where that same Balvar 8 is at today and the guy who currently owns it promised to show it to me. Thanks for posting the picture.
 
I have a few rifles with vintage scopes on them. One is a Mossberg 251c w/ K2.5 Weaver; its a tack driver. Another is a Remington 572, that wore a Bushnell 3-9x32 up until recently. It looked great, but the zero began to wander. So I swapped it for a Jap-made Tasco Pronghorn I had in the parts box and that cured it. I digress. Not too long ago, I was hunting for a "period" scope for my 80's Ruger M77; long story short, I wound up with a newer Leupold Rifleman. It out-performs the scope that was on it, and don't look half bad on the the gun. But, I'd have preferred a "period" scope in the end.

Mac
 
I'm all over the place. I have a 1926 Winchester 52 with a picatinny rail and modern 6-24 target scope, a 1953 model 70 with period correct Weaver 4X. A 60s Savage-Anschutz spotter with a 6-18X bdc scope and a 98 Krag with all original sights. I have no problem with just about any combination as long as nice original guns don't get butchered. Like a M1 carbine I picked up with plastic wood filling in the sling/oiler hole, added plastic wood pistol grip, and recoil pad. I'm getting a replacement stock ready for it now.
 
There is a reason old.gloss M8 and Vari X scopes are fetching high prices.

They look good on a wide range of classics.
 
I had an old Marlin 30AS I put an M7 on. Shot really well, too. The old cowboy from Wilcox who ended up buying it loves the thing.

When I bought my M70, I wanted to put a classic scope on it. That may happen yet, but it’s got a 3-9x40 Vortex sitting on it now, and it’s a balanced look as well as balanced in capability.
 
As far as being authentic on a rifle is concerned, does it make a difference whether a rifle from the 1950s has a modern scope on it? What type of modifications are considered permissible by the deans of rifle style? What would be a flagrant modification violation?
All "deans of rifle style" are self-appointed, so it's just a matter of individual opinion. If I were putting together a rifle to LOOK at, I might possibly want it to have a period-correct scope. But, I put mine together for functionality and shooting enjoyment, so looks take a back seat to functionality. For example, I have a recent production Weaver T-24 on my favorite 1958 model bench rifle instead of something from the 1950s. It's not a modern Hubble-type 56-mm objective/34-mm tube/illuminated reticle w/laser rangefinder, but it's not a 1958 K4 either. :)

yid1jfI.jpg
 
AFor example, I have a recent production Weaver T-24 on my favorite 1958 model bench rifle instead of something from the 1950s. It's not a modern Hubble-type 56-mm objective/34-mm tube/illuminated reticle w/laser rangefinder, but it's not a 1958 K4 either. :)
View attachment 956086

Dang, that is one handsome rig Turbo!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top