What do you think of old weaver K4 scopes?

R

Rugdoc

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I've got an old steel Weaver K4 that a buddy gave me.

I discovered on a hunting trip that it fogs up in the damp so I put it away for 10 years.

I just found out it can be repaired for about $60.00 plus shipping.

Is it worth having it fixed?

How do they compare to a new Leupold VX1, Redfield or Rifleman for example? Do you like them?

I don't even need it really, I have Leupold M8 4X scopes on my three principal rifles already, but it would be nice to pop on one of my spares like my 243 for example.
 
I don't think that scope will be comparable to a VX1 or Redfield if that is what you are hoping for.

After the repair it might still be a $80 to $120 scope, having said that it would make a really good spare and would look great on an older gun. It'll get the job done for sure but the clarity and eye relief might not be up with the new stuff.
 
Weaver K4 scopes are well made, and have dependable adjustments. If the glass is clear with no scratches, etc, then it's worth the cost to repair. You might want to ask if the crosshairs can be changed to a duplex while it's being repaired. The only thing I don't like about the older Weavers is most have a fine straight line crosshair, that can be hard to see at times, but a duplex is much better, and worth an extra cost.
 
I don't think some of the older K-model Weavers were ever meant to be moisture proof, along the lines of modern Leupold for example. I had an old K2.5 at one time and you could screw the eyepiece completely off, which kind of negates the whole idea of sealing it.

What it would cost to get it fixed is about what it would be worth used.
 
I have one of my older 4X Leupold gun-show $150 scopes away at the shop right now getting a duplex put in, so I might just wait on fixing the Weaver or just put it on my 22 Hornet for fair weather plinking.
 
I've got two old Weavers: I think one is a K2.5 and the other K6. The first has a 3/4" tube, and the second is 1". Aside from the clarity not measuring up to modern standards, and the fine crosshairs being hard to see in low light, both telescopes work well. Mine don't fog up, but the ring, lens retainers can unscrew by hand. I never thought about it until now, but perhaps the least expensive way to remove troublesome moisture from inside the tube is to allow it to "fill" with arid winter air sitting beside a woodstove before tightening the ring retainers back onto the lens. If you have a hygrometer, it is easy to see that relative humidity on cold winter days is usually between 20-30%, as opposed to a typical summer day around 60-80%. Allowing the scope to "fill" in a warm house at the foremost humidity level, is not perfect, but would be much better than the latter. Just a brainwave I had... falls short of purging a telescope made during a time when being airtightness was not a priority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom