Vintage scope dilema for an old Ross 280...

[Claven2]

I have a nice old Ross 280 sporter en-route that someone drilled and tapped long ago (I know, but at least I won't feel guilty about scoping it).

On it right now is an old Weaver 4X with cheesy aluminum mounts and rings. This has got to go.

Whatever I put on it will be a vintage steel tubed scope, steel rings, steel mounts for the vintage look/feel.

Just having a hard time deciding what to use...


Some of the options I've considered include:

-Lyman Alaskan
-Lyman 4X Perma-center
-Kollmorgen Bear Cub
-Zeiss Zielvier or Diatal
-Hensoldt Wetzlar
-vintage Kahles 4X

Preference would be a vintage scope with no windage, only elevation adjustment and to use windage-adjustable bases like early redfields or something.

Problem is, I don't have any of these scopes yet, so whatever I go with, I'll also have to find...

Any advice/leads/comments welcome!

And no, I don't want to surf e-bay trying to outbid some moron begging to get fleeced on a "german sniper scope" that was really just a hunting scope robbed off an old drilling.

 

[Dogleg]

It isn't quite what you're looking for, but I have a vintage B&L Balvar, non-adjustable scope with Leupold adjustable mounts and rings set up for a pre64 model 70. I wouldn't have a clue what base you would need to tie it all together, but it would fit the vintage rifle/vintage scope theme.

 

[H4831]

As far as vintage is concerned, isn't the Lyman Alaskan, and even the Kollmorgen Bear Cub in the same age group as early steel Weaver K models? I think the K2.5 was the first large tube Weaver.
Maybe the small tube Weaver 330 would look good on it??????
Too bad it wasn't a vintage Winchester you wanted scoped. I have genuine Winchester rings, with the rear one adjustable both ways.

 

[Claven2]

Honestly, I really do not like Weaver scopes. The old ones often fog up in rain due to the poor seals they used and they are far too vanilla. The quality just isn't there for a rifle a cool and valuable as a high-grade ross 280. The gun is worth at least $1200 - no way am I putting a $40 Weaver on it for any length of time.

Something more like this:

or this:

or this:

is far more appropriate IMHO

 

[Claven2]

Honestly, I really do not like Weaver scopes. The old ones often fog up in rain due to the poor seals they used and they are far too vanilla. The quality just isn't there for a rifle are cool and valuable as a high-grade ross 280. The gun is worth at least $1200 - no way am I putting a $40 Weaver on it for any length of time.

 

[H4831]

I won't question your evaluation of Weaver scopes.
However, you did mention a Lyman Alaskan, and while they had a ###ier sounding name, a 2½ power sold for about $42.

 

[Claven2]

Perhaps, but the Lyman Alaskan was built to milspec and is a trim 7/8ths scope that today sells for might more than $40+ if you can find one, while a Weaver is a $30-40 scope. There is a reason for that.

 

[maple_leaf_eh]

You should put your mind in the late 1940's or earlier 1950's. What scopes were available to a discriminating shooter back then? What was better than bargain priced?

AFAIK, the scopes then were low magnification and fairly bland compared to today's. A 1" tube would have been pretty big. So a 7/8" tube with a straight objective, like the Lyman Alaskan is perfectly appropriate.

 

[Why not?]

You should put your mind in the late 1940's or earlier 1950's. What scopes were available to a discriminating shooter back then? What was better than bargain priced?

AFAIK, the scopes then were low magnification and fairly bland compared to today's. A 1" tube would have been pretty big. So a 7/8" tube with a straight objective, like the Lyman Alaskan is perfectly appropriate.

I have a 50+ year old Unertl Condor 6X that has travelled literally thousands of miles in scabbards, cases, trucks, boats, snowmobiles and by hand. It still has optics that are comparable to some of the best scopes sold today, as well as adjustments that are more reliable than most.

The last group I shot with it, it was on my old 270 FN and it put three into well under an inch at 100 yd. Old can be very good!

Ted

 

[Noel]

I would put my vote in for the Kahles although for some reason the Lyman seems more 'fitting' to the rifle you speak of. I suspect the Kahles to be much brighter that Alaskan though.
As much as you don't like the Weaver they were the go to scope of the day because they were affordable.

BTW, the vintage Kahles are tough as nails, took a bad fall with mine on the scree and it never lost zero even after taken a real bad hit.