importance of "period correct" accessories

[Hookeye]

Period correct? Kinda sorta.
Overall looks? Kinda sorta.
I am flexible in how I'll set up a rig, but can't get too outta whack.
Why my Contender handgun wears a scope and not reflex or reddot.
Had one w reddot, worked great. Looked funky.
Too bad nobody makes a RDS that looks like a reg EER pistol scope.
I even went with a Bushnell Trophy 2X............because I like a 32 mm front for looks, vs a 20mm.
Could have gone 4X Leupold, but like a 2X for deer hunting.
So had to go non Leupold.

View attachment 845625

Note the lack of medallion on Pachmayr forend. Yup, that would have been overkill considering they're on the grips..........so had to look for an older version forend.

Yes, I am that picky.

And why I don't run a G2. Prefer the kitty cat and overall look of the less strong first version.

 

[Hookeye]

Sharp rifle Dave !

I did see a 4X Wards not long ago, but it was in rough shape.
Bet they'd have sold it for 19.98 LOL

 

[Hookeye]

Evidently there is a market for period correct.
Fun to just look around on this site

https://www.vintagegunscopes.com/

Pops has some Japanese Redfields, new in box.
Has some M8 EER NIB too.

Heck, saw a Lyman Target scope wood box not long ago.
Guy wouldn't price it.
I just wanted it for the shelf, put nick nacks in it.

 

[LoonWulf]

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?

I might put together a period correct rig to play with and take to the range now and then. But on any gun I use regularly, I want modern optics.

Oh by perriod correct, I mean it would LOOK period correct, I'd buy as much new stuff as I could. Probably do an older style single shot with a Malcolm scope, and other similar accessories....... Ya know this is an area of firearms knowledge I'm lacking..... Might be time to build just that.

 

[sage5907]

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.

A good rifle is like a racehorse because it was made to run. I also think a good rifle is timeless in that if it was well designed when it was manufactured the design will carry it forward for many years. A Pre 64 Model 70 manufactured 1953 is very similar to a Montana rifle manufactured today. Take a 1953 Model 70, add a Pachmayr Decelerator pad, a good Leupold scope, Timney Trigger, currently manufactured bullets and powder and you have a top of the line hunting rifle. The rifle was accurate in 1953 with a 4 power scope but it is super accurate today with the accessories that are available. Very user friendly. After all, it's only 66 years old and the first moon landing was in 1969.

 

[marksman13]

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.

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.

Period correct? Kinda sorta.
Overall looks? Kinda sorta.
I am flexible in how I'll set up a rig, but can't get too outta whack.
Why my Contender handgun wears a scope and not reflex or reddot.
Had one w reddot, worked great. Looked funky.
Too bad nobody makes a RDS that looks like a reg EER pistol scope.
I even went with a Bushnell Trophy 2X............because I like a 32 mm front for looks, vs a 20mm.
Could have gone 4X Leupold, but like a 2X for deer hunting.
So had to go non Leupold.

View attachment 845625

Note the lack of medallion on Pachmayr forend. Yup, that would have been overkill considering they're on the grips..........so had to look for an older version forend.

Yes, I am that picky.

And why I don't run a G2. Prefer the kitty cat and overall look of the less strong first version.

https://www.leupold.com/scopes/red-dot-sights/freedom-red-dot-sight-rds-1x34mm

Leupold makes a new red dot that looks a lot like a scope.

 

[Boattale]

Rules are different for collectors and the rifles and accoutrements they want vs. a person who wants a rifle to have fun with at the range or in the field hunting. Shades of gray might be there somewhere too. Me? I've got a 1944 Husqvarna Swede. I put a mojo adjustable peep on it, have the stock sights saved back. The mojo is so much better than the mil sight that the onliest person who might change back is someone who won't shoot the rifle but only show or safe it. That person is not me. No judgement either way.

 

[Hookeye]

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.


https://www.leupold.com/scopes/red-dot-sights/freedom-red-dot-sight-rds-1x34mm

Leupold makes a new red dot that looks a lot like a scope.

It has a bit of bell front and back but really doesnt look like a scope imho. Have examined one up close

View attachment 845704

 

[Hookeye]

I must say....outside of the friction adj on my old m8 4x compact......i really like that scope. Have had two so far. Dunno what coatings the lenses have or how many. But a 4x w an exit pupil of 7 or more....think any half arse one should let one hunt right next to legal light. Those that night hunt may require a bit better. Ive never had to pass on a shot due to my Leupolds being less than the latest and greatest.

I have decent vision.....or had lol. Maybe that helped.

Did look through a plus 1k Steiner a guy had at the club and it was crisp. Seemed like i was watching HD television.

Certainly better than any vx3 or 2 ive had or looked through. Ànd while it was pretty freakin awesome....,would i need that difference to punch my tag? I mean...my rifle doesn' t shoot half inch groups either.

To me....there certainly is " good enough ". Better brand stuff thats from the last 30 yrs should offer decent service for most folks.

 

[Hookeye]

If i get a savage 99 it will proly get a 1-5x leupold. High comb stock and recoil pad too. Should have modified my '35 EG

 

[Robert]

My 1941 Lithgow (Australian) No1 MkIII* wears an 11/17 date stamped Model 1907 bayonet marked Australia on one of the handle scales. Which works out rather nicely as I do WWI and WWII Australian reenactment.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Rules are different for collectors and the rifles and accoutrements they want vs. a person who wants a rifle to have fun with at the range or in the field hunting. Shades of gray might be there somewhere too. Me? I've got a 1944 Husqvarna Swede. I put a mojo adjustable peep on it, have the stock sights saved back. The mojo is so much better than the mil sight that the onliest person who might change back is someone who won't shoot the rifle but only show or safe it. That person is not me. No judgement either way.

I didn't go as old school with the optics and mounts on my two (270 and 8x57) pre-HVA Husky sporters, but I'd be tempted if I could find the period-correct upper mount for the old side base on the one. At the moment it's wearing a repurposed air rifle mount in an offset position for lack of anything better.

 

[MacAR]

For me it depends on the rifle. For example, I have an M77 25-06 from the 80's. It wears a 2017 Bushnell Trophy 6-24x50mm AO scope. The rifle is remarkably accurate and therefore, I scoped it accordingly. The big scope allows me to not only shoot a little farther than others, but to see exactly what I'm shooting at. No more guessing if that doe is a button buck, or if that little scrub buck has 4 points or 6. On the flip side, I have dad's old Remington 700 ADL in 30-06. Dad gave it to me a few years ago, but kept his scope. I had very little money then, being young and newly married. One day, while perusing a pawn shop, I found a Williams 5D-70 peep sight, for only ten dollars. Remembering the two little holes in the side of the receiver, I snatched it up. A little bit of stock work and the 5D was mounted. I sighted it in an inch high at 100 yards, and can keep all 5 shots in a fruit-jar lid at that distance. I have an old 1907 sling on that rifle also, and the combination of sling and peep sight make the rifle look older than it probably is.

Now, having said that, I owned at one time a Shiloh Sharps 50-140. It came to me with Soule front and rear sights. While period correct, I didn't like them. I replaced them with a reproduction 8x Malcolm scope. It ran the length of the 34" barrel, was clear and accurate, and looked pretty darn snazzy. I hated it. It made the rifle so damn awkward that I couldn't carry it. So I removed it and replaced it with a 4x Weaver, in mounts my gunsmith made for me. I used it a lot more after that. To me, there is a line between historically accurate and actually usable.

Mac

 

[Speedo66]

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

It's interesting in that ad for the M-1 Carbine, they state it has a 12 groove barrel. Was this typical for Universal or another copy, or did someone like Marlin make that barrel?

 

[Offfhand]

There are circumstances in which being "period correct" is of utmost importance: those being collector's competitions in which the entries are closely judged for correctness. I've never been to one of these competitions but I read an article about one of them in a Collector's Journal and was amazed at how points are awarded or deduced. It's a lot like vintage car shows where panels of expert judges inspect every item and the owner must supply supporting evidence. I supply such evidence in similar firearms competitions would be dated catalogs and references like old Shooters Bibles, etc. After reading the article I check out some of my vintage rifle/scope combos to see how that would stack up. Here are four of mine, that may or not be correct. Any opinions?

 

[sage5907]

There are circumstances in which being "period correct" is of utmost importance: Any opinions?View attachment 845778 View attachment 845779

I especially like that Mauser DeLuxe rifle with the Baush & Lomb Balver Eight scope. That was the premier scope for the 1960's and it brings good memories back to me. When I was young I spent many hours with a Govrnment Hunter who had a 25-06 with a scope like that. At that time Oklahoma allowed spring turkey hunting with a rifle and to make a story short two big gobblers were running across an open hill at about 100 yards and I used his rifle to get both of them with two shots. This guy never gave out any complements and when he told me I did good it made me smile. He basically took me along on his trap lines to open and close gates on the big ranches but I didn't care. That rifle is definitely period correct.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

It's interesting in that ad for the M-1 Carbine, they state it has a 12 groove barrel. Was this typical for Universal or another copy, or did someone like Marlin make that barrel?

The op rod in the old catalog pic doesn't look like a Universal, so maybe Plainfield? According to this site, Plainfield used 12-groove barrels at one time in the early 60's: http://www.m1carbinesinc.com/carbine_Plainfield05.html

 

[cdb1]

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.

As usual I agree with you 100%.

 

[theotherwaldo]

When I gather in a period rifle with period accessories, I try to keep them together. I will make temporary changes for certain occasions but I try to make sure that those changes are reversible. Even in the case of guns that were Bubba'd fifty or more years ago, that as-used condition is as much of a historic roadmark as a pristine example from the same period.
Then again, I'm a librarian that has been trained as an archivist. Historic preservation is in my blood.

 

[Offfhand]

The four "period" rifles shown in entry #40 were not posted as a sho&tell from my personal collection but, rather, as challenge to viewers of this thread. If these rifles were entered in a Period Correct competition, and you are one of the judges, which, if any, would you just to be correct? And if not, what are the clues?

 

[Mowgli Terry]

Depends on the rifle and scope. For me, my ancient Unertl scope is just fine on my 700 VS from the 1980's. I have a Savage and a couple of Remington's with period correct scopes. It would be in my worst interest to remove any of those period correct scopes. It's a lot easier to explain period correct scopes and mounts than non factory drilled and taped holes etc. Would it look correct to have a current lighted reticle range finding 50mm scope on a 1927 vintage Model 99? There is no rule against changing these scopes out. Like most decisions in this world, one has to live with the consequences.