I had to ask the experts here, I have a pre64 70 from my GP. It has a scope almost as old on it as well as a 1in leather sling.

Am I doing something very wrong in updating the rifle? Glass has made some significant strides in 50yrs and slings are a lot more comfortable.

thoughts?

Unless youre keeping it around for a collector piece the I say upgrade. Even then, you could always throw the old sope back on there if you change your mind.

The biggest advancement short of HD glass has been the widespread use of coatings on lenses. A riflescope older than 20-30 years will not have such lens coating.

The lack of coating means light transmission is poor and that will manifest itself in late afternoons and early mornings. Also, the color rendition will be poor; everything looks washed out through the scope.

I keep an old pair of binoculars, pre-lens coating, to compare with newer stuff.

jerkyjer,

I've wondered the same myself. Got a 1981 Savage .308 110S that has the original glass on it... a Weaver T-16 steel body scope.
I have compared the T-16 (while it works well and certainly is well-preserved) and the modern stuff is clearly brighter...

If you want to enjoy it as a retro rifle then leave it as is. If you are going to use it regularly then I would update.

Dad gave me his 1949-vintage Model 70 many moons ago. The first thing I did was to replace the fixed 4-power scope with a modern (but value line) 3-9x variable scope. The rifle is due to another optics upgrade one of these days, but it's not my highest priority.

I don't see the collector value of a Model 70, because there a so many of them out there. If you must maintain the original configuration for sentimental value, I get the reasons for not wanting to change things.

However, if you intend to shoot the rifle at all, quality sighting systems can make the difference between hitting and missing a target. My Dad has no issues with upgrading the toys and tools he passes on to me. He has repeatedly stated that if my changes make the device more usable and desirable, then more power to me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: fritz,

I found this Remington Model 700 Classic in .35 Whelen for sale used in my LGS a few years ago. Its a "Classic" in every sense of the word as they only produced the Classic version in a limited run during 1988. I replaced an 4x fixed scope that was probably mounted on this rifle at the time it was bought new with a modern Leupold VXR 4-12x40mm with a red dot plex. Its a great combination that I've used to take wild pigs (like this one), mule deer, elk, and moose with great effect. If older rifles are possessed without the intent to actually shoot them, that's okay. If you want to enjoy a classic beyond admiring it as a "safe queen", go ahead and use an optic that matches the purposes the gun was built for!

It depends on the scope. I am a big fan of fixed power scopes. I do own variables too. But I would not be anxious to replace the optic until I knew what it was. There are very good old scope's that are excellent optics even today.

Bushnell
Weaver
Redfield
Leupold
Tasco
Nikon

Just to name a few.

Some of these names are still around and only offer low quality junk now, but not in the day. Made some great stuff back then.

So I would not be in a hurry to update until I took a little time to figure out what you have. Good luck.

My question would be what cartridge does it shoot and what is your intended use for the rifle?
Big

I still use the little Lyman "Alaskan" scope that has been on my 1941 Model 70 .30-06 for probably 70 or more years. I kind of like it. I am funny that way.

I see no problem with it. I've been considering replacing the older Leupold Vari-X 1-4x on this 1986 Ruger M77 RSI with a modern 1-4x with illuminated reticle, for the better clarity and better functionality in low light or on dark backgrounds. Something like a Steiner P4xi.

thanks for the responses. I'm going to update it. It's not a safe queen and has seen some action. I'll defiantly hold onto the old glass and sling.
It's a 243 and will prob be the kids first hunter.

I have three Weatherby rifles that were my father-in-law's. The oldest is a .270 Win (yes, not .270 Weatherby) on a Mauser action. This is a VERY old Weatherby - from the old Southgate location. I replaced the glass in a New York minute when I got it. It had what was a pretty good German scope on it, but it was 65 years old or more. The cheapest scope now is better than that old thing, not to mention that age had fogged the glass. I installed a Zeiss Conquest on it, and now the scope measures up to the rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by jerkyjer:
thanks for the responses. I'm going to update it. It's not a safe queen and has seen some action. I'll defiantly hold onto the old glass and sling.
It's a 243 and will prob be the kids first hunter.

Good move. You'd only be handicaping the kids with that old scope.

I understand the sentiment about new. I really do. But I have some scopes on rifles that are older than those posting negative comments about them that work just great, just like they did years ago.

If you want new, fine. But making silly comments about handicapping a new hunter. Is well, silly.

Those making those scopes 40, 50, 60 years ago or more were true American craftsman. Many were well built units, using quality components constructed with pride.

I understand many or these scope are no longer in service. But many are. And still work perfectly.

If you need a place to donate your old/ancient still functioning scope. I could use a few.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
I understand the sentiment about new. I really do. But I have some scopes on rifles that are older than those posting negative comments about them that work just great, just like they did years ago.

I did not post a negative comment on old scopes or their workmanship, what I did was explain the main difference between the state of the art up to the late 1970s and what is the minimum today; lens coating. The very best glass prior to lens coating does not hold a candle compared to a run of the mill modern scope when it comes to light transmission and even color fidelity. Lens coating are that much of a game changer and with modern manufacturing techniques, this game changing feature is so common, it's the bare minimum for riflescopes.

quote:

If you want new, fine. But making silly comments about handicapping a new hunter. Is well, silly.

Except when it comes to hunting in the early morning or late afternoon time periods, where light transmission becomes critical.

quote:

Those making those scopes 40, 50, 60 years ago or more were true American craftsman. Many were well built units, using quality components constructed with pride.

This does not mean that modern scopes are all junk, does it? But as I said above and earlier, the best riflescopes of 40, 50 and 60 years ago just don't measure up to run of the mill modern scopes when it comes to one important aspect; light transmission. It's like saying they really built nice slide rules in the days of yore, or adding machines. They surely did, but they don't compare to a cheap calculator. (And I still have 2 slide rules.)

quote:

I understand many or these scope are no longer in service. But many are. And still work perfectly.

Within their limitations, they surely do.

quote:

If you need a place to donate your old/ancient still functioning scope. I could use a few.

I hope people send you all their old scopes. I'm sure you would give them a good home.

nu, i will make it easy for you.

I did not say you did..

Like the guys and gals hunting a half century or more ago did not harvest game at early dawn or late dusk.

New modern stuff junk? No and I never said it was. That would be silly.

And clear, magnified optics of yester year are mostly limited by their user.

In a nutshell I am not comparing new to old. I was just stating that on a older rifle with a vintage optic it is not necessarily a requirement to buy a better, new optic. In many case's the original optic is very serviceable. And in my case. If a family member gave me the rifle. The first thing i would do is clean and inspect it. If it checked out I would use it. If it and the optic functioned 100% I would be very happy to keep it and use it as the person who gave it to me did . Especially if it was someone important to me. That is all.

Update, replaced a bushnell scope chief with a new Lup vx1. Glass is clearer and crosshairs are clearer. Excited to dial it in and get my first speedgoat.
Cabelas offered to buy the gun, I passed and told my family they have to pass as well.
I do appreciate the responses and opinions. It's what makes this site so special.
Happy hunting

quote:

Originally posted by jerkyjer:
Update, replaced a bushnell scope chief with a new Lup vx1. Glass is clearer and crosshairs are clearer.

Nice. The VX1 is a nice scope. Earlier this year I sold one that I had used for many years to a buddy who needed a new scope. He is now quite happy with that VX1.

As noted above, modern coatings make a big difference on light transmission. Its also possible that Leupold's lenses are ground to a little higher level -- but that's just speculation on my part.

I have noticed that older scopes often have simple cross hair reticles that are actual wires within the scope. Modern scopes -- especially those with more complex reticles -- tend to have reticles that are etched into glass. I don't know which is which in your case, but I prefer the etched reticle any day. I've seen the wire reticles that were off center and that moved when the scope received a good shock.