Home Main Category General Firearms

What was the first scope you purchased

2

Replies

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,335 Senior Member
    I didn't buy my 'Widefield' with any expectations of grandeur. In my case I think it was either used or on sale. 

    As Gene indicated in his post, I never took any notice of any particular advantage in that scope. It did and it does continues to provide accurate aiming at reasonable distance.

    The older scopes (at least mine) have POI discrepancies between magnification settings. Not enough to matter at common hunting distances.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    Pegasus said:
    Growing up and beginning my hunting in the late 60's into the 70's I think I was like most kids and hunted with a lever action Win 94 in 30-30.  In 1976 I bought a LH Rem 700 BDL in .270 win.  It was my first bolt action rifle.  I couldn't afford a scope the first year and hunted with open sights.  The next fall I bought a new Redfield 2X7 low profile wide field scope.  I have no idea how much though my mind says it was around $90.00 but I could be wrong.

    This scope was the bees knees of scopes.  It whooped my pops old Weaver 4X he had on his Steven Savage Model 23 in .222/20ga and my buddies dad's Weaver 4X on his .22 Hornet.  I loved the wide field of view and hunted with that rig for 15 years.  It killed many a critter. 

    The kicker to this story, I was so accustomed to the wide field of view, it was difficult migrating back to a tradition scope with a round field of view.

    I kick myself for selling the scope.  One day I'll pick one up used for old time sake! 


    I hate to burst your bubble, but the scopes you describe were not "wide field."  They were ordinary scopes in which the manufacturer had placed a mask that cut off a good part of the top and bottom of the scope and presented a rectangular image to your eye instead of the full picture.  Cameras do essentially the same thing by using a rectangular sensor to be covered by a round lens.

    I suspect the scope manufacturers thought they could fool some people into thinking they were producing magical scopes.  Apparently, they were right.

    I have one of those old Tasco 4X with the mask in it.  I took  that scope apart after it died of a broken reticle.  Yep, it was a wire, not etched.  The wire was part of the same piece that made up the mask. I'll see if I can find the parts.

    You were robbed of a sizeable portion of the image due to that mask.

    That is almost exactly what my dad told me, when I was trying to wheedle him into 'upgrading' the Weaver K-4 I had saved up to buy. As usual, he won that debate - pretty annoying, since he never owned a scope in his entire life.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #34
    That's the key operative phrase, "At common hunting distances."

    I like good scopes now that I've been spoiled but you really don't need a $500 or even $300 scope to do what most of us do. As I've always said and echoing you here when you said it's for "accurate aiming at reasonable hunting distances", it's a sighting system, not a telescope. Get a set of good binos to do your looking around and identifying. Scoping out the area with a rifle scope is definitely not the safest practice. Remember one of the Ten Commandments of firearm safety, "Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot." Jus' sayin'. OK I'm off my safety soap box, I can't help it I was a Hunter Ed instructor too long.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,780 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    That is almost exactly what my dad told me, when I was trying to wheedle him into 'upgrading' the Weaver K-4 I had saved up to buy. As usual, he won that debate - pretty annoying, since he never owned a scope in his entire life.

    Your dad sounds like a very smart person,  I would hope he's still around, I lost mine many years ago not far from his 90th birthday.


  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #36
    bisley said:
    Pegasus said:
    Growing up and beginning my hunting in the late 60's into the 70's I think I was like most kids and hunted with a lever action Win 94 in 30-30.  In 1976 I bought a LH Rem 700 BDL in .270 win.  It was my first bolt action rifle.  I couldn't afford a scope the first year and hunted with open sights.  The next fall I bought a new Redfield 2X7 low profile wide field scope.  I have no idea how much though my mind says it was around $90.00 but I could be wrong.

    This scope was the bees knees of scopes.  It whooped my pops old Weaver 4X he had on his Steven Savage Model 23 in .222/20ga and my buddies dad's Weaver 4X on his .22 Hornet.  I loved the wide field of view and hunted with that rig for 15 years.  It killed many a critter. 

    The kicker to this story, I was so accustomed to the wide field of view, it was difficult migrating back to a tradition scope with a round field of view.

    I kick myself for selling the scope.  One day I'll pick one up used for old time sake! 


    I hate to burst your bubble, but the scopes you describe were not "wide field."  They were ordinary scopes in which the manufacturer had placed a mask that cut off a good part of the top and bottom of the scope and presented a rectangular image to your eye instead of the full picture.  Cameras do essentially the same thing by using a rectangular sensor to be covered by a round lens.

    I suspect the scope manufacturers thought they could fool some people into thinking they were producing magical scopes.  Apparently, they were right.

    I have one of those old Tasco 4X with the mask in it.  I took  that scope apart after it died of a broken reticle.  Yep, it was a wire, not etched.  The wire was part of the same piece that made up the mask. I'll see if I can find the parts.

    You were robbed of a sizeable portion of the image due to that mask.

    That is almost exactly what my dad told me, when I was trying to wheedle him into 'upgrading' the Weaver K-4 I had saved up to buy. As usual, he won that debate - pretty annoying, since he never owned a scope in his entire life.
    So let me see here, the moral of this story is you can't put a square lenz in a round hole? Or you can't put a round lenz in a Square hole?

    Anyway, they may not have been truly functional, but they were CUTE!


    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,780 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #37
    snake284 said:
    So let me see here, the moral of this story is you can't put a square lenz in a round hole? Or you can't put a round lenz in a Square hole?

    Anyway, they may not have been truly functional, but they were CUTE!


    Well, actually you can; cameras have been doing this for over a century. 

    The actual moral of the story is that you can't take the left over top and bottom of the circle to add to the sides of the square to make it wider.


    Or put another way, it's easy to fool some people using optical tricks.


    Or better yet, ask yourself "If it was such a great idea then, why is no one doing it these days?"

    Damned Internet, it's pretty hard to carry on a myth when it can be debunked in 15 seconds with a decent search engine.

  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Well you can't believe everything you see on the internet either, remember who invented it, LOL!!!
    You mean Al Gore didn't really invent it? Why that lying scoundrel. And all this time he had me believing it, not really...

    You know what I mean! Damn a guy can't even make a funny on here.....LOL!



    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,208 Senior Member

    I think that Weaver billed them as "Wide Angle" scopes.  I don't know if they actually had a wider field of view or not.  I had one at one time.  It was a fixed 4x scope.

    It seemed wider to me, but then again, I'm not nearly as smart as you, Pegasus.

    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    If I recollect correctly, most of the shops back then (early '60's) that sold scopes had some clunky imported scopes, but featured Weaver as their low-end, good quality scope, and sold the Redfields at approximately twice the price, letting the price tag speak for itself. The clerks wouldn't waste their time trying to upgrade you to a Redfield unless you requested more information. I would look at them, but wouldn't actually touch one, for fear I would damage it and be forced to buy it. Of course, I was a kid on a bicycle, at the time - they might have put out more effort with a grown man.

    The only Leupolds I ever saw were in my dog-eared copy of "Shooter's Bible," and they were unbelievably expensive (to me).

  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #41
    Pegasus said:
    bisley said:
    That is almost exactly what my dad told me, when I was trying to wheedle him into 'upgrading' the Weaver K-4 I had saved up to buy. As usual, he won that debate - pretty annoying, since he never owned a scope in his entire life.

    Your dad sounds like a very smart person,  I would hope he's still around, I lost mine many years ago not far from his 90th birthday.


    Unfortunately, he's been gone for 15 years, but I still have clear memories of some of the gun debates he sucked me into, during my early teen years. The gun topics weren't much different from the topics that come up, today. Remington Core-Lokts represented the newest bullet technology, Poly-Choked shotguns were in vogue, and the military was still haggling over whether to buy AR-15's, and in what chambering.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,780 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #42

    I think that Weaver billed them as "Wide Angle" scopes.  I don't know if they actually had a wider field of view or not.  I had one at one time.  It was a fixed 4x scope.

    It seemed wider to me, but then again, I'm not nearly as smart as you, Pegasus.


    A "wide angle riflescope" is what is known as an oxymoron.  In optics, if you have something that is 1X or higher magnification, it is not a wide angle optics.  A wide angle optics must have a negative magnification, by design.


    The riflescope companies like to discuss concepts like field of view, the actual angular measurement of the image at a certain magnification, but we are usually talking about an inconsequential difference having more to do with the mechanics of the scope than anything else. Ultimately all scopes are viewed by the Mark 1 eyeball and that's pretty much a constant.  If you have a 2X magnification, you have reduced your field of view by half.  How you stay close to that is up to the riflescope designer and how good they are.  Remember, riflescopes are full of compromises.


    Cameras can have zoom lenses that go from something like 0.5x to 8X.  Riflescopes do not have, or need, such a range; they are aiming devices, not observational or artistic devices.

  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,780 Senior Member

    snake284 said:
    Well you can't believe everything you see on the internet either, remember who invented it, LOL!!!
    You mean Al Gore didn't really invent it? Why that lying scoundrel. And all this time he had me believing it, not really...

    You know what I mean! Damn a guy can't even make a funny on here.....LOL!



    You did just fine.  And yes, while the internet is full of lies and deceptions, it's also a great device to find out about various myths and beliefs and figure out if they are right or wrong.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,780 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #44

    I forgot to mention that the Tasco 4X32 in question was my first centerfire riflescope.  Mine was silver.

    I think I bought in 1973 or so.

  • Jeff in TXJeff in TX Senior Member Posts: 2,151 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #45
    As a sixteen year old with no internet to shame me and money I earned myself working, I bought what was thought at the time as cutting edge technology. Heck I didn’t know any better. You can shame me all you want now!  That Redfield low profile 2X7 served me well for fifteen years or so and never once  let me down. 

    Times changed, technology evolved and the internet made it possible to shame everyone for most anything!

    For me, I’m one proud former owner of what I called the bees knees of scopes when I was a kid. 😎
    Distance is not an issue, but the wind can make it interesting!

    John 3: 1-21
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #46
    Yeah, back in the day Tasco and Simmons were great scope deals. Think about this, during that time Coated lenses either didn't exist yet or they were in their infancy, so any good well made scope made with decent glass looked good. My Redfield 4x32 was the brightest thing going in 1966.
    As a sixteen year old with no internet to shame me and money I earned myself working, I bought what was thought at the time as cutting edge technology. Heck I didn’t know any better. You can shame me all you want now!  That Redfield low profile 2X7 served me well for fifteen years or so and never once  let me down. 

    Times changed, technology evolved and the internet made it possible to shame everyone for most anything!

    For me, I’m one proud former owner of what I called the bees knees of scopes when I was a kid. 😎
    All this technology is great but it doesn't make up for lack of hunting or shooting skill. I know people that tag out on deer and kill 5 or 10 pigs every year with the same ol' Weaver K or Tasco scope they bought back in 1960 or 70. They don't have a clue about scope technology past that. And they don't care if they can see past dark thirty because they usually have the deer hanging by 5:45 P.M. Of course that isn't me I'm referring to there.

    BTW Jeff, I have two of those square lens Redfields here in one of my gun drawers. One is a straight 6 power that was on my dad's 7 mag that fogged up and the other is a 3-9x whatever it is that opened up groups to 5-6 inches. Something came loose inside. I've been saying I'm going to send them off to Iron Sight for 10 years now but never did yet.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,208 Senior Member

    I have to take exception with you on Tasco scopes, Snake.  When I was 15 or 16, my dad bought me a Savage 340 30-30 for Christmas with a $25 Tasco 4x scope on it.   The rifle was used, and had been a rental from the local pawn shop.  It had a head space problem or something, and the bolt would stick so tightly after a shot I had to beat it open.  I never liked that rifle.

    But, I digress.  The scope went belly up about a year after I got it.  The crosshairs slipped 45 degrees from straight vertical and horizontal.  I was not particularly distressed when it was stolen.  I just wish the thieves had left my 88 and taken the old beat up Savage.

    Now, I have a 340 chambered in .222 Remintgon, and love it.  It's the second most accurate rifle I own.

    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    edited December 2018 #48
    Jerry, I never actually owned a Tasco myself except one that came on a gun I bought off a Gun Broker auction and I gave it away. But I did always hear that Tascos could be great or they could be the pits. If you got a good one you had a great scope for the money and the times. But every once in a while you could end up with a lemon in which case you had nothing. I heard this from several people back in the 70s and 80s. But this was when they were still made in Japan. I've never heard a good word about a Chinese made Tasco.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • jaywaptijaywapti Senior Member Posts: 4,981 Senior Member
    Pegasus said:
     


    I hate to burst your bubble, but the scopes you describe were not "wide field."  They were ordinary scopes in which the manufacturer had placed a mask that cut off a good part of the top and bottom of the scope and presented a rectangular image to your eye instead of the full picture.  Cameras do essentially the same thing by using a rectangular sensor to be covered by a round lens.

    I suspect the scope manufacturers thought they could fool some people into thinking they were producing magical scopes.  Apparently, they were right.

    .

    You were robbed of a sizeable portion of the image due to that mask.

    Yup, so true, I have an old Weatherby 4x on my 03-a3 it has what i called a " TV screen "

    JAY 

    THE DEFINITION OF GUN CONTROL IS HITTING THE TARGET WITH YOUR FIRST SHOT
  • kansashunterkansashunter Senior Member Posts: 1,881 Senior Member
    Because I started late in life my first scope wasn't that long ago. I bought a Howa in 300 win mag. and bought a Nikon monarch for it. The scope cost more than the rifle. I still have it but I did put it in a Boyds walnut stock. I really liked Nikons for a while but the newer ones don't seem as good to me. 
  • Great OutdoorsGreat Outdoors Member Posts: 323 Member
    Mine was the first edition of the Bushnell Banner Litesight- which I still have on a Marlin 30-30. Killed lots of deer with it.
    All Irons and peeps before that.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    bisley said:
    If I recollect correctly, most of the shops back then (early '60's) that sold scopes hislead some clunky imported scopes, but featured Weaver as their low-end, good quality scope, and sold the Redfields at approximately twice the price, letting the price tag speak for itself. The clerks wouldn't waste their time trying to upgrade you to a Redfield unless you requested more information. I would look at them, but wouldn't actually touch one, for fear I would damage it and be forced to buy it. Of course, I was a kid on a bicycle, at the time - they might have put out more effort with a grown man.

    The only Leupolds I ever saw were in my dog-eared copy of "Shooter's Bible," and they were unbelievably expensive (to me).
     70 A
    Bisley, when I bought that Redfield and Model 70 Winchester Leupolds went on Weatherby rifles and they were in another universe. I paid $40 for that old 4x Redfield and thought I was so damn special. Like I said, I still have it.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,335 Senior Member
    I have a Redfield Tracker3×9 on my Mnt gun, and Leupold 3x9 on my Win 70. Both scopes are at least 25 years old or older. I had them both out a few weeks ago. There's a long hallway in the center of my house some 10 to 12' in length. In the front room I have a painting of deer I sometimes use for dry fire practice. It about fifteen feet from where I stand.  At 3x they're clear when viewed through the Leupold. Same magnification is fuzzy through the Redfield. The Redfield also has a wrong marked turret intalled new at the factory. Both have endured decades of hard exposure to weather and abuse by ham handed fumblers without complaint. I think the Leupold is better.

    BTW both mounts have also endured in tact. One is the old bulky Weaver. The other is a one piece Leupold with the twist lock front ring. Nothing special, but they work. And work. And work.
  • Jeff in TXJeff in TX Senior Member Posts: 2,151 Senior Member
    Nothing special, but they work. And work. And work.
    I think your line says it all for the older scopes and equipment some of us have used for decades!
    Distance is not an issue, but the wind can make it interesting!

    John 3: 1-21
  • Six-GunSix-Gun Senior Member Posts: 8,155 Senior Member
    Mine was a Leupold Vari-X I 4-12x40mm (friction adjustment/no clicks) that I put on a Browning A-Bolt Medallion II in .300 Win Mag.  I didn't know a thing about scopes back then, but I'm glad it had just enough eye relief for the gun.
    Accuracy: because white space between bullet holes drives me insane.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Yeah, just like people, you don't just throw them away when they get some age on them. You get your money's worth out if them. I use them til they die.,
    Pegasus said:

    I think that Weaver billed them as "Wide Angle" scopes.  I don't know if they actually had a wider field of view or not.  I had one at one time.  It was a fixed 4x scope.

    It seemed wider to me, but then again, I'm not nearly as smart as you, Pegasus.


    A "wide angle riflescope" is what is known as an oxymoron.  In optics, if you have something that is 1X or higher magnification, it is not a wide angle optics.  A wide angle optics must have a negative magnification, by design.


    The riflescope companies like to discuss concepts like field of view, the actual angular measurement of the image at a certain magnification, but we are usually talking about an inconsequential difference having more to do with the mechanics of the scope than anything else. Ultimately all scopes are viewed by the Mark 1 eyeball and that's pretty much a constant.  If you have a 2X magnification, you have reduced your field of view by half.  How you stay close to that is up to the riflescope designer and how good the4y are.  Remember, riflescopes are full of compromises.


    Cameras can have zoom lenses that go from something like 0.5x to 8X.  Riflescopes do not have, or need, such a range; they are aiming devices, not observational or artistic devices.

      One thing about it, if you chop off some of the bottom or top of view, in a hunting situation you probably haven't lost as much as you would by chopping off the sides. That's probably why they got away with it. Which brings me to the thought about the now discontinued Leupold VX-3L. In case you're not familiar, that's the one that had the cut out at the bottom so the scope fit lower along the centerline of the bore of the rifle. This helped with large objective lens scopes. My one example is a 4.5-14x56mm objective. It fit down low on the rifle where I didn't have to lift my cheek off the butt stock to make a shot. It's a great scope and I don't know why they quit making it. I didn't miss that part of the field of view because it was taken up by the barrel anyway.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,780 Senior Member
    Yes, I'm familiar with that Leupold and even wrote about it at the time.  The issue with the cut out is that it reduced the size of the front lens element and you no longer had a 56mm objective, it was closer to 47mm IIRC.  One needs to remember that it's the surface area of the lens that counts.  That said, I could very well see why some people would like to have their scope very low to the bore, for some reason.  I'm much more interested in a comfortable position behind the scope, but then again our aims (pun fully intended) for scopes are very different.  When I get a few moments, I'm going to start another thread about non-hunting scope use; I don't want to pollute your thread any more than I have already.
  • Jeff in TXJeff in TX Senior Member Posts: 2,151 Senior Member
     A lot of younger crowd here won't understand this.  Back in 60's primarily the 70's for me where did we get the bulk of our gun and scope knowledge? Magazines like Field and Stream, Sports Afield, Hunting and Fishing and of course Outdoor Life.  There was no internet or online searches.  I can't remember which magazine it was, but they did a pretty good piece and write up on the new Redfield line of Low Profile Widefield, wide objective scopes.  Back then these writers and magazines we're the gospel of new products, at least to us kids. They tried them, tested them, gave us their honest assessment and always showed us how good they preformed at the range and on their hunts.

    If was after reading a couple of these write-ups I knew which new scope I wanted.  I started saving and took me a year to save the money for the scope, rings and mounts.  I chose the 2x7 over the 3X9 and for the life of me I can't remember why but there was a reason.  It was a great scope and never once failed me.

    And BTW, I'm looking at a couple of 2X7's on eBay.  I just want one again though I'm not sure what rifle I'll put it on!
    Distance is not an issue, but the wind can make it interesting!

    John 3: 1-21
  • PegasusPegasus Senior Member Posts: 2,780 Senior Member
     Jeff in TX said:
     A lot of younger crowd here won't understand this.  Back in 60's primarily the 70's for me where did we get the bulk of our gun and scope knowledge? Magazines like Field and Stream, Sports Afield, Hunting and Fishing and of course Outdoor Life.  There was no internet or online searches.  I can't remember which magazine it was, but they did a pretty good piece and write up on the new Redfield line of Low Profile Widefield, wide objective scopes.  Back then these writers and magazines we're the gospel of new products, at least to us kids. They tried them, tested them, gave us their honest assessment and always showed us how good they preformed at the range and on their hunts.

    If was after reading a couple of these write-ups I knew which new scope I wanted.  I started saving and took me a year to save the money for the scope, rings and mounts.  I chose the 2x7 over the 3X9 and for the life of me I can't remember why but there was a reason.  It was a great scope and never once failed me.

    And BTW, I'm looking at a couple of 2X7's on eBay.  I just want one again though I'm not sure what rifle I'll put it on!

    I really need to start that new thread.  o:)
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,335 Senior Member
    I thought you guys might find these interesting. This is an article articulating the price of high magnification for scopes in terms of elapsed time for target acquisition and eye relief. It appeared in the August 1960 Guns & Ammo.
    These next two ads appeared in the August 1960 American Rifleman.


  • Jeff in TXJeff in TX Senior Member Posts: 2,151 Senior Member
    Earlyagain,

    For 1960 a Leupold VX1 3x9 for $89.50 seems high to me, but that's really cool to see those advertisements.

    I did some digging and found someone on eBay with a 1976 Redfield catalog.  I thought I paid around $90 for my 2x7 and was a bit low.  

    The 2x-7x low profile widefield scope with a duplex reticle listed for $141.50. The 2x-7x, 3"-1" dot was $155.80 and the 2x7x Accu-range variable retailed for $155.80.

    I probably paid list or a bit less.  To many years ago.  

    Distance is not an issue, but the wind can make it interesting!

    John 3: 1-21
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement