Opinions on older Weaver Scopes???

[JohnWS]

I have a chance too get a WEAVER 4X Rifle Scope , appears too new in box for $40 , is this a good value? Are older Weaver scopes a good value at all ? I'm new to rimfire rifles , in general, up untill reciently anything that didn't have .30 in front of it I didn't pay much attention too. Reciently I aquired a real nice .22 Rifle and would like too find a scope for it. There appears too be alot of these old scopes avalible these days .... I'm not opposed too spending hundreds on a new scope , but if you can get the job done with a nice old tool , why not ?? Any opinions ??

 

[madcratebuilder]

I'm not familiar with the Marksman series, but I can tell you that the K series from the 50's and 60's are very nice scopes and command a high price if in good to excellent condition. I have a K4 and a K2.5, both have very nice glass.
When I started searching for a old Weaver I was surprised by how many people collect old scopes. Some pre war scopes bring unbelievably high prices.

 

[mp510]

I have a Weaver D4 (fixed power 4x) that came with a cheap vintage single shot. It doesn't seem like a bad little scope, and one thing that's nicer about it than the cheap modern tip offs is that the objectives are slightly larger.

 

[alemonkey]

I have an old Weaver K4 on my go-to deer rifle. Works great.

 

[SwampWolf]

I always liked the way the blue on Weaver steel tubes was so compatible with the bluing on the host rifles.

 

[Art Eatman]

Hard to beat the old Weaver K4s, really. Weavers have pretty much always been a reasonable quality scope for the money.

 

[WardenWolf]

Not exactly a fan of the optics. My father has a Weaver on his old Remington 7mm. I'll be frank: a $60 Leapers scope beats the optical quality of those old Weavers.

 

[rcmodel]

It sure won't beat the mechanical quality of the turret adjustments & lens mounting though.

rc

 

[WardenWolf]

The new ones are finger adjustable, though. And they hold zero just fine. The one drawback is that the tubes are less durable and the scopes can be broken easier.

 

[lipadj46]

How old is it and what is the model name? I had a Weaver 1-4x on a .22 rifle from the 80's and it worked fine for years. It was noticeably darker than any modern coated scope and I noticed it was getting a little cloudy also. Unless it has some sort of collector value or it is newer than you think, $40 is too high. I would buy any decent modern budget multi coated or fully multi coated scope as it will run circles around it for not much more $$.

It sure won't beat the mechanical quality of the turret adjustments & lens mounting though.

For a .22 that is not so critical.

 

[aka108]

In 1950 I put a Weaver G6 on a 1948 Remington 512. This combo has been together for 59 years, maybe had the dials moved a click or two 8 or 10 times. Still on target. Same for a Weaver 4x Marksman that came as a package on a Win 190 from 1970. Picked up a Weaver steel V series 1x4.5 at a garage sale for 5 bucks. Had a light amount of rust but cleaned up and the glass was clear. It's on a Rem 597. The old Weavers are great. Just put a new 3x7 on a Browning semi-auto. It's Japanese. I won't live long enough to see if it has the long term durability I've had with old ones.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

I guess I'm harder on scopes than you others. I've got a really nice k3 post/crosshair that won't hold zero. I have another k3 duplex that wanders too. I have half a dozen redfields that won't hold zero too and all have been back to redfield for thr and still won't hold zero. Their optics are very good. I have el chepo bsa's that I've abused just to see how they held up and none failed. Optically they aren't nearly as good as the weavers and redfields but they do hold their zero. In all honestely most all the scopes that failed saw some pretty hard use as they were kept in my gunrack and were bounced around quite a bit.

 

[WardenWolf]

Right, 351. Today's cheap scopes, as long as you get one that is well-designed and can stand up to heavy recoil, are more than good enough for most uses. I only broke my Leapers because my 10-pound gun fell off my shoulder and it hit a rock eyebell-first (I fell in rough terrain). Bent the tube just forward of the zoom adjuster, which means it will never hold zero when adjusted again. I had zero complaints about the optics, though. They were good enough that you didn't even realize you were looking through a lens, even zoomed in to the maximum 9 power. Bright and clear. If I was going to pick a scope to bang up, I'd rather it be a $60 one than a $100+ one, and I plan to buy it again. Why should I dump a ton of money into a scope when I can get exactly what I want and need out of a cheaper one?

 

[ArmedBear]

On the one hand, Weaver had a VERY good reputation back then

And on the other hand, back then it seems that most hunters wouldn't have gone afield with a scoped gun unless it had irons on it as backups.

Now, most guys don't feel at all uneasy about just grabbing a scoped rifle without sights, and going out.

There must be some reason for the change in SOP.

 

[rcmodel]

There is a reason.

Todays firearms manufactures have quit putting iron sights on rifles to save money.
And the new generation of shooters are brain-washed into thinking they need a 12X-20x, 30mm, Tackycool scope to shoot a deer 100 yards away.

And back then, scopes were a "new thing" for riflemen weaned on M-1 Garands in WWII, and they didn't trust scopes yet.

I'm not saying todays better scopes are not clearer and tougher and better then a Weaver K series scope made 50 years ago.

But I have used Weaver K2.5, K-3, K-4, K-6, and K-10's in the years since my first on in 1960, and have yet to break one. Oh! I forgot the old Weaver V-9 on my 25-06!

And I couldn't be more satisfied with their performance on game or targets.

rc

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

Back in the good old day's weavers were good scopes. Quite frankly my first weaver k3 served me well for about 20 years before it gave out. The optics are still crystal clear today. I fell in love with the post/crosshair's years ago especially for low light, but sadly one has to pay big bucks today for that retcile. I know in Europe the post/crosshair has always been popular. Go figure.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

like was said they were good scopes in there day but technology has improved drasticaly in the last even 20 years. You can buy a scope at walmart for 50 bucks that would put those old scopes to shame for brightness and clarity and low light performance. Those old weavers werent bullet proof either. Ive had the crosshairs fall out of a couple of them through the years.

 

[Cocked & Locked]

I always liked the way the blue on Weaver steel tubes was so compatible with the bluing on the host rifles.

What SwampWolf said...

Old steel tube Weaver 1.5-4.5X on a ruger M77/44 magnum




Also, the newer (made in Japan) Weaver Classic scopes are great value for the costs. They have fully multicoated lenses and are bright. I have a 4X on a .50 cal. mzl. loader, a 4x on a Marlin .45-70, a 2.5X on a Marlin 39A, and a 2-10X on a Remington 700 .270.

 

[atblis]

Hmm

If it is in nice shape and is an older K4, it is probably worth more than $40. They seem to be collectible now. Check ebay.

 

[ArmedBear]

Todays firearms manufactures have quit putting iron sights on rifles to save money.

Of course.

But if people didn't trust their scopes, those guns wouldn't sell very well. And some of them are VERY high-end rifles, too. $100 here or there is not a big "driver" in that market niche.

 

[Savage99]

The old steel tube Weaver scopes were something that we avoided. The Weaver had poor optics. They were the cheap scope of that era.

We bought and used Lyman and B&L scopes.

 

[AKElroy]

I have an early (1960ish) K-4, and it is still in like new condition. Good glass, heavy steel tube & built like a tank. The .270 model 70 this scope graced for 40 years has harvested hundreds of deer, but a few late afternoon hunts really showed the poor light transmission of these scopes (with my aging eyes) & I have since replaced it with a VXIII. For shooting in good light, these are terrific scopes w/ rounded lines & lustrous blueing that really bring back some nostalgia.

 

[Art Eatman]

Stuff changes over time. I remember when the first Tascos came on the market, and they were brighter than any of the US-made top of the line scopes. Trouble was, the coatings faded in a few years and Oops!

I remember when Bausch & Lomb advertised using their scopes to drive nails. My uncle ordered one for a customer. When it arrived in the mail, the crosshairs were all curled and wonky. I guess the USPS was tougher'n nails!

Generally, though, Weavers have been reliable all through the years. Not each and every scope in their line was a case of "always", but that's not unusual for any manufacturer.

 

[Slamfire]

I have one K4 Weaver on a 35 Whelen. The scope might be 60's, or 70's. It is clear and does not appear to change recoil, even though the rifle is light and has a heavy recoil. It is a good scope.

Good older scopes are fine. Since the semi conductor revolution hit manufacturing, even todays' cheap scopes have benefited. But the real improvement has been in our medium end optics.

The high end stuff, it takes a teenager to see the difference.

I got to look through a late 40's early 50's Zeiss once, it was not as clear as a modern Leupold, but it was pretty darn clear. (Don't know if the lenses needed cleaning)

 

[Sav .250]

Have several vintage Weaver scopes. All have been in service for years .
Still puts-um where they`re supposed to be . No problems what so ever.
I will say this though, the new technology in rifle scopes really dates those old Weavers.
I just put a new Nikon ProStaff 3-9x on a Sav 99 And all i can say is oh my!