Vintage weaver vs modern scopes
- Thread starter Groverino
- Start date
Dark Alley Dan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Darkest Edmonton
I believe lens coating tech has come a long, LONG way since Weavers were made in El Paso. I have a K2.5 and a K3, really like them both, but they're as capable and modern as a 1962 Ford Galaxie Sunliner.
They'll getcha there, but not with the same ease and capability as a more modern piece. One wonders if someone like Trace Scope Repair could apply some of those modern wonder coatings while they had an old piece like this apart...
They'll getcha there, but not with the same ease and capability as a more modern piece. One wonders if someone like Trace Scope Repair could apply some of those modern wonder coatings while they had an old piece like this apart...
Thanks that’s really helpful in making my decision. The price difference is maybe $100, which sounds like it’s well worth it.
I have three Weaver I-4’s that have served me well. They are better than a lot of new cheap scopes. Never had any problems with them, always held zero and haven’t failed. Steel tube Weaver’s will have a place on my rifles for awhile. I did pickup an older Redfield on a Contender barrel that is very clear.
The old Weavers were some of the most dependable, tough and reliable scopes around in their day. I found they adjusted and tracked accurately and held zero. By todays standards the glass would not be as good as the newer scopes but I`ve had vortex scopes and would pick an older Weaver over a Vortex all day long.
Butcherbill
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Blaster land, Okanagan BC
A buddy has a couple on older hunting rifles, they’re pretty nice to look through. I’m honestly never wowed by vortex’s lower priced scopes, I’d pick an older Weaver over a vortex if they were my two choices.
are you speaking about the 'K4' made in El Paso with steel tube or the K4 made in Japan 15+ years ago with an alloy tube? The former is pretty poor optically compared to most scopes -- even the older Bushnell Scopechief scopes were much brighter with better sharpness and contrast. However the Microtrac adjustments - where provided - on the old steel tube scopes are very good. The Japanese made Weavers were decent products optically and folks who purchased the 'KT' Japanese scopes were pleased with the performance.
I wouldn't trust the vortex crossfire series of scopes to hold zero, but would trust the old weaver fixed power scopes to hold zero in a typical hunting calibre.
For shooting gophers and varmints i suspect the vortex variable would work better than a fixed weaver.
For shooting gophers and varmints i suspect the vortex variable would work better than a fixed weaver.
"Tracking" is the term used when one adjusts / turns the turrets in order to move the POI on the target and the number of clicks/adjustments coincide with the distance that the POI moves.
Example, at 100 yards if one moves the elevation turret "Up" 8 clicks on a scope with 1/4" increments then the POI should move "Up" 2 inches. If it does then the scope is said to track properly, if it doesn`t (like most Vortex) then it does not track properly. Over the years my experience has been that although Leupold glass is fine, reliability is okay and they will hold POI once set, they do not generally avail themselves to a lot of adjusting/dialing, that is why a lot of guys often refer to them as a "set and forget" scope. I still own several Leupolds and generally like them but use BDC reticles and do not dial for elevation.
Currently own 3 K series weavers. K2.5 K3 K4 and am looking to purhase a good K6 to replace (guess what) a vortex cross fire 2. Just had my K2.5 in to Trace scope repair (Cochrane AB). That particular scope is an early post WW2 vintage. I sent a copy of the last target I shot at 100 yds with it mounted on my 9.3X57 Mauser 98. The 4 shot group was 5/8" overall with three of the bullet holes breaking edges with each other vertically. I sent the scope to Trace for an inspect/maintence check. Cost for check up? (hold your breath) A whopping $105 return shipping included!
All my Weavers are optics bright and clear (Trace advised those older Weavers got up to @ 88% light xmission) and the klik adjustments are positive, precise and hold zero even under the repetitive heavy recoil of my 9.3X57 Mauser. No Siree! You'll never see me turn my nose up at a vintage weaver in good condition. Anybody want to trade their vintage weaver for a Xfire 2? Just my buck & 1/2.
From Trace Scope repair - Note that ALL Weaver scopes of 1" tube diameter as well as the 3/4" tube J and A models had fully coated lenses after WW II. They used Magnesium Flouride coating, simple and quite effective. The light transmission in the old Weavers was in the 85-88% range. The 3/4 and 7/8" rimfire scopes did not have coated lenses.
All my Weavers are optics bright and clear (Trace advised those older Weavers got up to @ 88% light xmission) and the klik adjustments are positive, precise and hold zero even under the repetitive heavy recoil of my 9.3X57 Mauser. No Siree! You'll never see me turn my nose up at a vintage weaver in good condition. Anybody want to trade their vintage weaver for a Xfire 2? Just my buck & 1/2.
From Trace Scope repair - Note that ALL Weaver scopes of 1" tube diameter as well as the 3/4" tube J and A models had fully coated lenses after WW II. They used Magnesium Flouride coating, simple and quite effective. The light transmission in the old Weavers was in the 85-88% range. The 3/4 and 7/8" rimfire scopes did not have coated lenses.
Last edited:
While the newer Crossfire scopes may have nicer glass due to advancements in optics, the Weaver scopes were very tough.
Many scope manufacturers make different grades of scopes, I tend to avoid the lower end ones for a hunting rifle.
Many scope manufacturers make different grades of scopes, I tend to avoid the lower end ones for a hunting rifle.
