Old vs new scopes

[CBH Australia]

Hopefully I can clear up a point or three with regard to scopes.
1: The average adult’s eye pupil diltates to a maximum of 7mm in the dark.
This is why many of the old “low light” hunting scopes were fixed 8x56 scopes. The objective lens diameter, divided by the magnification will give you the exit pupil diameter of the scope. 56 / 8 = 7
Less than 7mm does not maximize light transmission, and more than 7mm is wasted light that the human eye cannot use. This is the reason why high magnification scopes have inferior light transmission to lower power scopes and why 8x42 binoculars are brighter than 10x42’s.

2: Lens coatings have come a long way since the 1930’s, when an employee at ZEISS, Dr Smakula invented the concept. Each optics company that coats their own lenses uses their own proprietary “recipe” of coating minerals, which gives each its unique optical qualities and are very, very closely guarded trade secrets.
The actual coating process is basically the same across all the manufacturers.
The prepared lenses are loaded into a rotating disc which is then placed into a vacuum oven. The various minerals eg. Magnesium are then heated, which basically vapourises the mineral, and this vapour then adheres to the lens.

3: The actual glass that’s used in the main lens elements of scopes and binoculars, has also come along in leaps and bounds. Especially in the last 15-20 years. Today, lenses contain Flourite and other additives that increase their clarity and light transmission figures substantially vs 20 years ago. Some of these modern lenses are actually so sensitive, that they need a special coating between the various grinding and polishing steps. Otherwise the air in the room will corrode the glass!

4: For most U.S and African hunters, light transmission and illuminated reticles are not that important, but in Europe it’s often the first priority for a hunter looking at a new optic. A LOT of their hunting takes place at night and the use of spotlights and other artificial light sources are taboo, so they need every last bit of transmission they can get.

5: The diameter of the tube has NOTHING to do with light transmission.
Zip, Zero, Nada! A wider tube diameter allows for greater elevation and windage adjustment. That’s it.
Because of the large objective diameters used in many European scopes, they went for a 30mm tube for aesthetic and structural strength reasons. No other.
A 56mm objective scope would look stupid with a 1” tube.

6: If you’ve never owned a scope with an integral rail, try it!
They’ve been used in Europe for over 50 years!
The scope is always mounted straight and level with the action and barrel. (If the scope is skew, it’s the action or barrel that’s cockeye)
There is no pressure on the optics in the scope and everything can move perfectly. We’ve also used them on rifles up to 500 Jeff without a single issue.
Basically it’s perfection developed many years ago. Kind of like 6.5 and 7mm cartridges.

Agreed,
But the last sentence of point 5 says a 56mm objective would look stupid with a 25mm tube.
The Kahles 8x56 was very popular in Australia for spotlighting. The ones I've seen and the one I own are 25mm tubes. Nothing stupid about it and it is excellent on low light.
Schmidt and Bender make an 8x56 scope with a 25mm tube in Germany but the models assembled in Hungary are 30mm tube. I'm not sure why tube sizes differ when they are apparently the same lenses.

 

[Ontario Hunter]

Great post, and I learned a lot! I've wondered over the last couple of years why so many scope manufacturers don't put integral rails on their scopes. I cannot really think of any reason not to.

Asthetics. Rails "don't look good." I have the same brand rails on both my 30-06 Springfield 03A3 and Mauser 98 404 Jeffery. Both guns were improperly tapped. A rail takes care of that. Otherwise it's necessary to shim bases, lap rings, etc. If the rings are the same make, they will line up on a rail without lapping.

I don't like the tacticool look but these rails are a little less "black gun-ish" due to the cutout for loading magazine. They also allow for more adjustment of eye relief on some short tube scopes. And correct eye relief is critical for quick target acquisition. At least as important as proper cheek weld. I was concerned the rails might inhibit loading but even the monster thick 404 cartridges load easily and no trouble dropping a round in for quick snap-over loading.

I'm shooting an old Weaver K3 on the 404. The turret adjustments are kind of a pain (requires a coin and elbow grease) but otherwise a very good scope. It killed a ton of game mounted on the 06 for 35 years.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Trying a test I used two scopes, 1935 manufacture Zeiss Zeilvier 4x compared to recent manufacture Zeiss Diavari V 1.5-6x T*. Sundown at this latitude today was 8:03PM PDT but in the mountains the valleys are dark with just the sky having light. So I picked out a portion of the side of the hill about 700 yards away. At 8:10 I started looking through one scope then the other, noting how much detail I could see and if it was enough that I could determine if I was looking at a log, rock, stump, animal etc. this back and forth went on until 8:17 when the older scope became marginal and by 8:20 I wouldn't trust the image to be a verified target. Looking through the newer scope the scene was very slightly brighter but it too was beyond confirmation by 8:22. So from my perspective, I'd have gained 2 minutes- hardly enough to cash in the tried and true scope that is now 85 years of age.

It is clear that the advancements in design and coatings allow for a clearer image, but to what extent do they provide utility worth the marginal cost? Or I could say, those Germans in 1935 really knew how to make a scope.

@Ray B
I think it depends on the brand of scope. My old Pecar 4x81 is still a brilliant scope but my old nikko sterling is only good for display for historical purposes. The internals have mould and its like looking thru a very dirty window in a coal mining town.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Another trend I see is for larger objective lenses and higher multiples of magnification on the newer socpes. When the Swaro Z6i came out i treated myself to one in 2-12 power. Because of the large eyepiece I had to mount it much higher than my other scopes to clear the bolt handle. After not getting a shot off due to not finding the animal in the scope I determined it was combination of two factors - turning the power ring the wrong way and not having a proper cheek weld due to the high mounting of the scope.

I put the Z6i on a single shot were it could be mounted lower and went to a Zeiss Victory HT in 1.5/6 power for my plains game rifle. I find I can still shoot minute of angle at 6x with no problem, the USEFUL twilight time is essentially the same, the scope is mounted low enough to have a good cheek weld, the scope is much smaller and lighter, the rifle/scope combination is much easier to carry, the "black band" around the edge the eyepiece is less, and the scope should be more durable due to less internal moving mass associated with power zoom multiples.

I can see the allure of a 2 to 16 power scope with a 56mm objective as a "universal" scope but for me I will pass on the bulk and mounting issues and stay with what is working for me.

@The Engineer
One thing Leupold did well was to contour thier big objective to go around the barrel to get it lower. Strange to look at as it looks like someone has hit the objective with a piece of pipe.
Like @CBHIm not fond of Leupold scopes the reticle is to fine for my eyes
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

I am as old school as anyone, but I have several drawers full of pre-war and early post-war German and American scopes. I have played around with them a lot and have them mounted on several period rifles just because. The brightest (and I love the old steel K4) are the Lyman All American series. The pre-war German optics generally have relatively narrow fields of view and regardless of clarity (very unimpressive in my view) it makes them difficult to use. Adjusting them for sight-in is art rather than science, and they fog at the merest hint of humidity. Modern, first quality optics, are light years ahead of such artifacts.

All that said, I agree whole heartedly that 50+ mm objectives are generally an abomination. Their negative impact on ”shootability” outweighs whatever theoretical advantage is gained in light transmission.

One of the advantages of a quality modern scope is the ability to actually use higher magnification in low light. Often shot placement is the real challenge early and late. A modern quality scope allows us to increase power to 8 or 9X in those twilight minutes to insure the crosshairs are precisely where they need to be; a capability that is well beyond any of the older scopes that I own.

@Red Leg
Throw in an illuminated dot reticle in a modern scope and it makes aiming even easier in predawn or twilight times. My old Pecar with a command post may be clear and easy to see but ANY humidity and it turns to shit. Definitely not a cold weather scope as it fogs up.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Asthetics. Rails "don't look good." I have the same brand rails on both my 30-06 Springfield 03A3 and Mauser 98 404 Jeffery. Both guns were improperly tapped. A rail takes care of that. Otherwise it's necessary to shim bases, lap rings, etc. If the rings are the same make, they will line up on a rail without lapping.

I don't like the tacticool look but these rails are a little less "black gun-ish" due to the cutout for loading magazine. They also allow for more adjustment of eye relief on some short tube scopes. And correct eye relief is critical for quick target acquisition. At least as important as proper cheek weld. I was concerned the rails might inhibit loading but even the monster thick 404 cartridges load easily and no trouble dropping a round in for quick snap-over loading.

I'm shooting an old Weaver K3 on the 404. The turret adjustments are kind of a pain (requires a coin and elbow grease) but otherwise a very good scope. It killed a ton of game mounted on the 06 for 35 years.
View attachment 550357

@Ontario Hunter
The old K3 weaver and 3x Leupold were always the pinnacle of scopes on big dangerous game rifles. A lot of people lamented their passing and they still bring high prices on the 2nd hand market
Bob

 

[Houston Bill]

Hopefully I can clear up a point or three with regard to scopes.
1: The average adult’s eye pupil diltates to a maximum of 7mm in the dark.
This is why many of the old “low light” hunting scopes were fixed 8x56 scopes. The objective lens diameter, divided by the magnification will give you the exit pupil diameter of the scope. 56 / 8 = 7
Less than 7mm does not maximize light transmission, and more than 7mm is wasted light that the human eye cannot use. This is the reason why high magnification scopes have inferior light transmission to lower power scopes and why 8x42 binoculars are brighter than 10x42’s.

2: Lens coatings have come a long way since the 1930’s, when an employee at ZEISS, Dr Smakula invented the concept. Each optics company that coats their own lenses uses their own proprietary “recipe” of coating minerals, which gives each its unique optical qualities and are very, very closely guarded trade secrets.
The actual coating process is basically the same across all the manufacturers.
The prepared lenses are loaded into a rotating disc which is then placed into a vacuum oven. The various minerals eg. Magnesium are then heated, which basically vapourises the mineral, and this vapour then adheres to the lens.

3: The actual glass that’s used in the main lens elements of scopes and binoculars, has also come along in leaps and bounds. Especially in the last 15-20 years. Today, lenses contain Flourite and other additives that increase their clarity and light transmission figures substantially vs 20 years ago. Some of these modern lenses are actually so sensitive, that they need a special coating between the various grinding and polishing steps. Otherwise the air in the room will corrode the glass!

4: For most U.S and African hunters, light transmission and illuminated reticles are not that important, but in Europe it’s often the first priority for a hunter looking at a new optic. A LOT of their hunting takes place at night and the use of spotlights and other artificial light sources are taboo, so they need every last bit of transmission they can get.

5: The diameter of the tube has NOTHING to do with light transmission.
Zip, Zero, Nada! A wider tube diameter allows for greater elevation and windage adjustment. That’s it.
Because of the large objective diameters used in many European scopes, they went for a 30mm tube for aesthetic and structural strength reasons. No other.
A 56mm objective scope would look stupid with a 1” tube.

6: If you’ve never owned a scope with an integral rail, try it!
They’ve been used in Europe for over 50 years!
The scope is always mounted straight and level with the action and barrel. (If the scope is skew, it’s the action or barrel that’s cockeye)
There is no pressure on the optics in the scope and everything can move perfectly. We’ve also used them on rifles up to 500 Jeff without a single issue.
Basically it’s perfection developed many years ago. Kind of like 6.5 and 7mm cartridges.

Very informative post.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

One thing that can not be denied is the addition of electronics to modern scopes. I'm not sure what the first scope was to have an illuminated reticle, but nearly all modern manufactures have one of these offerings. Call it a sign of the times.

The difference a lit reticle makes when placing the crosshairs on a dark colored animal in a shaded area can not be denied. Advantage modern scope and I'm in that camp with 3 Swaro Z8i's on our hunting rifles.

Even more electronics can be added to scopes like range finders on crossbow scopes and ballistic calculators that bluetooth to a kestrel or phone. Electronics are here to stay, but having a backup plan is always a good thing too.

@BeeMaa
All them eelec tronic things may be good until y'all gits a flat battery.
I like simple. Hell even my 4x4 has 2 stick none of these fancy dials for mud ,snow, sand or whatever. No computer to go wrong.
A good heavy Dupkex reticle with fine centre cross hairs will do me.
That why I like my ziess and Meopta scopes
Bob

 

[BeeMaa]

@BeeMaa
All them eelec tronic things may be good until y'all gits a flat battery.
I like simple. Hell even my 4x4 has 2 stick none of these fancy dials for mud ,snow, sand or whatever. No computer to go wrong.
A good heavy Dupkex reticle with fine centre cross hairs will do me.
That why I like my ziess and Meopta scopes
Bob

Reticle is still there without illumination if the battery is flat. Nothing more than you currently have. But the gains with the battery can not be denied.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

This year I hunted deer with an old Savage Model 99 in 250-3000 with a period correct Lyman Alaskan and an original box of W-W ammo that had been bought with the rifle. The scope was better than open sites by far, but it was absolutely inferior to a modern Leupold VX-5 or equivalent. Never be too dogmatic about what is best. There is a much more complex piece of optical equipment involved in each of these equations, and it varies with your health and age. I enjoyed every minute of my hunt, and had an opportunity to shoot a little muley buck at about 70 yards......he walked toward me, seemingly happy and stupid......and I chose not to fire. But the nostalgia of old gear added to the enjoyment.......good shooting...........FWB

@flatwater bill
I hope it was the old Winchester 100gn silver tips.
Bob

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Great post, and I learned a lot! I've wondered over the last couple of years why so many scope manufacturers don't put integral rails on their scopes. I cannot really think of any reason not to.

@cash_tx
Cost
Bob

 

[CoElkHunter]

@Red Leg
Throw in an illuminated dot reticle in a modern scope and it makes aiming even easier in predawn or twilight times. My old Pecar with a command post may be clear and easy to see but ANY humidity and it turns to shit. Definitely not a cold weather scope as it fogs up.
Bob

My mid '70s 4x Bushnell has a mechanical "Command Post". Turn a dial on the eyepiece and a dark post pops up from the bottom. I had it on my Winchester .270 until about '96 when my father in law's horses got tied up in some trees bringing an elk back and a kerfuffle ensued. My rifle came out of the scabbard and a horse stepped on the scope and sheared off the windage screw. Amazingly, it still held zero! LOL

 

[93marlin]

I'm always trying to find some of the Bushnell Banner scopes. The older ones that had Bausch & Lomb glass lenses.
Good scopes and can be had at a very good price!
I will probably regret this post. Those scopes are getting more difficult to find!!

 

[CoElkHunter]

I'm always trying to find some of the Bushnell Banner scopes. The older ones that had Bausch & Lomb glass lenses.
Good scopes and can be had at a very good price!
I will probably regret this post. Those scopes are getting more difficult to find!!

I thought the current Bushnells have Bausch & Lomb glass from when they were bought by them? Maybe not now?

 

[93marlin]

I thought the current Bushnells have Bausch & Lomb glass from when they were bought by them? Maybe not now?

I get the ones that say B&L on the bottom of the scope. Not sure exactly what the relationship, if any, is now.
I think Bushnell has been made in a few Asian countries lately.

 

[petander]

After lots of looking,testing,viewing and comparing lately, I just sold my Zeiss Diavari Classic 1,5-6x42 today.

My old (serviced) B.Nickel 1-4x20 does the same while being a small 1" tube. 30 mm and 43 objective is sort of big. I rather see the Nickel on a double , rather than a 43 mm 30 mm and 3" longer...

But the winner is a relatively compact Zeiss 1,1-4x24 HT. A huge angle of view and the best red dot ever, from dim to bright. HT @ 3x has the same view as Classic @ 2x. Low light they are equal.

 

[rookhawk]

Light gathering that is predicated on modern glass to some extent, and modern coatings to a huge extent is what is lacking. That, and vintage optics are usually filthy and need a nitrogen purge and new gaskets.

I'm actually surprised someone hasn't come up with a cottage industry of gutting all the internals from high grade vintage glass so you can enjoy an "original" gun with the trappings of good optics inside the tubes.

 

[petander]

From top,to compare sizes:

A 1" B.Nickel 1-4x20 (70's or 80's), a 30 mm 1,1-4x24 Zeiss HT (2013) , a 30 mm 1,5-6x43 Zeiss Diavari Classic (2006).

30 mm small Zeiss has 24 mm lens, that is quite a bit more than the Nickel 1" tube 20 mm has. 44% larger lens surface to collect light.

If Zeiss,Swaro etc made 1" small , fast scopes with modern technology like HT coatings and dots... I think they would sell for double / combi folks.

I sold that bigger 43 mm Zeiss and probably regret it later... It is a good scope... but I have 56 mm stalking scopes on other guns. I want small on doubles / Combis.

 

[steve white]

Asthetics. Rails "don't look good." I have the same brand rails on both my 30-06 Springfield 03A3 and Mauser 98 404 Jeffery. Both guns were improperly tapped. A rail takes care of that. Otherwise it's necessary to shim bases, lap rings, etc. If the rings are the same make, they will line up on a rail without lapping.

I don't like the tacticool look but these rails are a little less "black gun-ish" due to the cutout for loading magazine. They also allow for more adjustment of eye relief on some short tube scopes. And correct eye relief is critical for quick target acquisition. At least as important as proper cheek weld. I was concerned the rails might inhibit loading but even the monster thick 404 cartridges load easily and no trouble dropping a round in for quick snap-over loading.

I'm shooting an old Weaver K3 on the 404. The turret adjustments are kind of a pain (requires a coin and elbow grease) but otherwise a very good scope. It killed a ton of game mounted on the 06 for 35 years.
View attachment 550357

I believe CashTX was talking about rails integral to the scope tube itself, so that no rings of any kind are required. These are seen more in Europe, but have advantages.

 

[petander]

Here is a modern Meopta 1,5-6 and an old B.Nickel 1-4. On a Merkel SLII combi gun 7x65r / 20 gauge.

All that bulky "tactical" look makes me sell the Meopta. It also has a huge "black ring" compared to Nickel which has hardly any "ring" in vision. And Meopta had problems tracking clicks when new. POI adjustment changes only after shooting a few rounds. Meopta picture is very good to my eye.