Old vs new scopes

[Dewald]

Spme of the finest scopes ive used were 70’s 80’s and earley 90’s zintage Swaro Habicht 3-9x36, Zeiss 6x36, Zeiss 4x40. They compare remarkably well to new Z3 3-9x36 or 3-10x40, as well as Zeiss 3-9xx40 or even 3-15x44.

Z6, Z8 and Diavari are a step ahead. But come at a serious premium

 

[flatwater bill]

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

 

[gbflyer]

Recently I purchased a really like new Swarovski Habicth Nova 3-9x36, a scope made in the middle '90s. I've always liked similar Zeiss or Swar, because the 36 objective can be mounted pretty low.
I have Swar Z6s and Schmidt & Benders, and I can honestly say that the old 3-9 does a really good work, in light transmission and contrast.
My only question is : how long can last gas inside the scope? Should I send it to Swarovski for a check up?View attachment 505923

I have that scope. Bought it brand new for $600 in the early 90’s. It was a lot of money but I’ve never regretted it.

 

[Phil Giordano]

I have that scope. Bought it brand new for $600 in the early 90’s. It was a lot of money but I’ve never regretted it.

Is it still in good working order, or maybe you had to refill the gas inside?

 

[gbflyer]

Is it still in good working order, or maybe you had to refill the gas inside?

Never had service. It’s been knocked around from Colorado to Alaska on a 338 Win Mag now on a 35 Whelen. I have a newer Z3 and prefer the old one.

 

[Phil Giordano]

Never had service. It’s been knocked around from Colorado to Alaska on a 338 Win Mag now on a 35 Whelen. I have a newer Z3 and prefer the old one.

Great news from a good source

 

[Aaron N]

Looking at a Lyman All American 6x for a 280 Ross. I need the tube to be at least 15cm long inside the bells. The seller says it’s 17.7cm.

Would this be a good option? Or does anyone have better sub $1500 option?

 

[Switup]

Everyone’s eyes are different. I can tell a big difference in clarity and brightness in current scopes vs scopes from even 25 years ago. I also don’t care for large objectives. The biggest I have is 44mm.

+1 as my eyesight decline I find the need for newer scopes and it has been really helpful. You can’t solve new problems with old solutions.

 

[Aaron N]

Looking at a Lyman All American 6x for a 280 Ross. I need the tube to be at least 15cm long inside the bells. The seller says it’s 17.7cm.

Would this be a good option? Or does anyone have better sub $1500 option?

Bueller?

 

[Dewald]

I have a Weaver K6 with basis and period pivot mounts taking up space. Make me an offer, but was thinking $1000 delivered via FEDEX in the lower 48

 

[Aaron N]

I have a Weaver K6 with basis and period pivot mounts taking up space. Make me an offer, but was thinking $1000 delivered via FEDEX in the lower 48

I already have 1” talleys. Looking at the Lyman All American 6x for 350CAD

 

[Red Leg]

Looking at a Lyman All American 6x for a 280 Ross. I need the tube to be at least 15cm long inside the bells. The seller says it’s 17.7cm.

Would this be a good option? Or does anyone have better sub $1500 option?

Yes! I had exactly the same scope on my Ruger No 1 that I purchased way back in the late seventies. I used it on that rifle for 25 years and it slew truck loads of roe deer, red stage, wild boar, and eventually whitetail. It now carries a 30mm Leica, but I could pull the All American out of the drawer, mount it, and still handle 95% of the opportunities for which I purchased the Leica.

And converted to USD, that 350 CAD is a steal.

 

[CM McKenzie]

Vintage Gun Scopes

Vintage Weaver, Redfield and other Vintage Rifle Scopes, Guns, scope rings and mounts for sale.

www.vintagegunscopes.com

These guys put modern glass in some vintage scopes. Also a great bunch to do business with.

 

[Alistair]

Having played around with quite a lot of 40s/50s/60s/70s German optics, I can say that the low light capability is generally quite good.

What usually is not as good are the following.

Field of view
size of eyebox
image clarity, color fidelity and contrast
sharpness towards the edge of the image.
Strength of erectors and adjustment control
Fogging and overall durability

As an example, a friend has an old 'West Germany' stamped S&B 'police sniper' spec 4x32(ish) from about 1970-1980 which he bought for about 50 quid at an arms and militaria fair in Manchester, UK. Presumably some British Army squaddie nicked it or traded it with the locals whilst on deployment in Berlin back in the day.

I played around with it for both running boar competitions and for plinking out to 600 back when I had no rifles of my own. It was usable, but not great. The head position had to be just right to mount and give a clear image, and as it was mounted to be right for my friend, I ended up jiggling my head around alot to avoid the whole 'view of the target from the other end of a bog roll tube' thing. Not good for quick mount and shoot stuff on short moving target exposures and not something I had to do with his other rifles fitted for him, but packing modern scopes. The FOV was noticeably narrower as well, so target acquisition on the moving target was challenging.

At 300-600 it was ok, or as good as any 4x is, but the difference in sharpness of image and the contrast between the backstop and the dinged up steel plate we were shooting at wasn't good compared to his modern scopes, or even the mid-2000s cheap Leopold thing on our other shooting buddies rig. When trying to use it for fall of shot indication for another shooter, you noticed how much the edge of the image drops off in quality versus the middle as well.

I hear anecdotally that the adjustments for windage were a little agricultural and not that consistent, and also that it fogged up when taken from a warm car to a cold range, although that's probably just due to 40 odd years of neglect and nothing a nitrogen purge and some maintenance wouldn't fix.

I'd happily something of that vintage in a pinch, but overall, I think optics have come quite a long way and even cheap scopes these days from the likes of Hawke or Leopold are as good as top tier stuff from 40 odd years ago.

 

[Clodo Ferreira]

Hi,

Agree with all these.
In my experience, I am still amazed with the INCREDIBLE resolution, aberrations free and ample field of view, and general mechanics of the last Kollmorgen 26 mm tube centered reticle scopes!!!! Nothing best of that period scopes, including all european brands. Period. And about that resolution and quality of view in the entire field, even today scopes can´t match those K......

CF

 

[Aaron N]

Yes! I had exactly the same scope on my Ruger No 1 that I purchased way back in the late seventies. I used it on that rifle for 25 years and it slew truck loads of roe deer, red stage, wild boar, and eventually whitetail. It now carries a 30mm Leica, but I could pull the All American out of the drawer, mount it, and still handle 95% of the opportunities for which I purchased the Leica.

And converted to USD, that 350 CAD is a steal.

Well I bought it. And I was wrong, only $300!

 

[petander]

I have been doing some comparing lately,too.

My 60 year old eyes (still no eyeglasses) can not use all the power from large objectives any more. Scope exit pupil is often larger than my eye can take. So it often seems to me as "wow,look how good all these old german scopes are, even with a smaller objectives"!

I sold a 76 mm Zeiss to some younger eyes because of this a few years back.

 

[FlyGuy]

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.

 

[Sika98k]

excellent post

 

[cash_tx]

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.

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.