Do some vintage scopes physically move the crosshair reticle in the eyepiece instead of tilting lenses and mirrors?

Im looking at an old military rifle with a cheap commercial scope, im guessing 1950s or 60s, and the reticle intersection in in the lower left quadrant when looking thru the lens.

I think the old russian PU scopes were this way.

I am just trying to convince myself this is proper and that its working as intended.

Yes

Some of the old type Euro ( German ? ) scopes do.

Yes, and it can be argued that in many ways they are much much more robust.

You really need to have scope mounts with windage adjustment so that you can do the vast majority of zero on the mounts.

Yes. When my merchant marine dad returned from Japan in the very early 60s (?), he brought me a FFP Prominar scope for my pre-64 Model .270FW.

It worked fine until the horizontal cross hair spontaneously broke, some years after I got it.

Yes, all scopes with internal adjustments before 1956 had reticles that moved out of centre. Redfield and Weaver changed to constantly centred ones then and other American makers followed over the next 10-to-30 years, with Unertl the last to succumb about 1985.

The Europeans knew the new system was conceptually dodgy and it was 1975 before any I know of folded. Some clung on for years after that, though, and Pecar stayed with reticle-movement until they closed in 2006. Pecar had their own centring system, though, based simply on putting a field stop around the FFP reticle, whereby you just couldn't see that it was out. That was solid, unlike most others, but reduced FoV and added tunnel vision much as the flaky Redfield/Weaver type does - and it only worked with fixed powers.

The Europeans usually had their scopes installed by skilled gunsmiths who would make sure they were mounted close to zero, but 'image-movement' appealed to people who wanted to save money by mounting their own.

PM me your address, 257 Roberts, and I'll give you a copy of my book on the matter.

quote:

Originally posted by B L O'Connor:
Yes. When my merchant marine dad returned from Japan in the very early 60s (?), he brought me a FFP Prominar scope for my pre-64 Model .270FW.

It worked fine until the horizontal cross hair spontaneously broke, some years after I got it.

Prominars had a good reputation here, BL, and I suspect Kowa made some early Bushnells, if only because they both used the Command Post concept. Your scope was FFP because most old reticle-movements were, though Weaver had made some that weren't in the '30s. (Unertl's target scopes were SFP, too, because the reticle magnifies less and is easier to install there when there are no turrets.)

Broken reticles are a risk with any made of metal. I would prefer an etched 'graticule' of glass but Leupold claimed they were likely to get blotched with fungus etc. I find that strange because if it gets on your reticle it will likely attack the lenses, too. However, we can't deny that every lens surface cuts light transmission, so two more won't help.

Ray Atkinson has mentioned that old Weaver reticles tended to pop in cold weather but I'm not sure if he meant metal or spider-web ones.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by B L O'Connor:
Yes. When my merchant marine dad returned from Japan in the very early 60s (?), he brought me a FFP Prominar scope for my pre-64 Model .270FW.

It worked fine until the horizontal cross hair spontaneously broke, some years after I got it.

Prominars had a good reputation here, BL, and I suspect Kowa made some early Bushnells, if only because they both used the Command Post concept.

Yes, they did make early Bushnell scopes, or so I recall.

Thanks for the additional info, all of which is new to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym SR20:

You really need to have scope mounts with windage adjustment so that you can do the vast majority of zero on the mounts.

I used to think this way until I went with Picatanny rails. Those old windage screw Redfield mounts are not the best.

Heym was writing about the need to get the reticle centred with the old scope, of course. Some defenders of modern scopes claim that you can put them in the most solid mounts, which is true, but I'd rather have any vulnerability where I can see and rectify it, rather than wait for it to sneek up on me in the middle of an expensive safari.

The best solution might be Burris Signature rings on non-adjustable bases. There, if the scope doesn't line up to bore sight with the reticle centred, you can use their eccentric inserts to get it there. The Nylon-like inserts can be bored or sanded out to 26mm to fit old European (and some American) scopes.

You need to center them with shims or custom bases, I no care for them, but done properly they work quite well, but the lens of those old scopes may or may not be great and time can take their toll..Its a trade off, take your pick. Ive not had problems with the centered reticle on modern scopes..

May I qualify your last sentence, Ray?

IIRC, you have not had problems with the centered reticles on modern scopes on smaller-calibre rifles - but have wrecked several on the big ones. In fact, you sent so many back to Leupold that they made you a special one and said you wouldn't wreck it because the reticle was under the turrets.

The only way that makes sense to me is if that scope has reticle-movement, because an image-movement scope where the reticle is slung onto the front of the erector tube would be, if anything, more affected by recoil.

If you won't write that book, someone should take the part of Boswell

I stand corrected I did trash a lot of modern scopes on my 458 Lott and 505 Gibbs, and they rattled like a BB in a box car, also trashed some early Weavers and Redfields, I solved the problem with the 2.5 Leupold compact as you know, at least so far..Neither of those guns deserve a scope and ended up with Lyman receiver sights..My opine only but I never shot anything with either gun over 75 yards and mostly less than 50 yards..

I have no doubt of your opine on the older none centered reticle as stronger, but its a trade off IMO and I have had no problems with the modern scopes on calibers up to and including the 375 and 404 best I recall but AT MY AGE YA NEVER KNOW AS YOU CAN SEE,,

Thanks Ray,
I'm still learning about these things and am now amazed how strong some pre-WWII scopes were.

Though some held the reticle cell against the screws just with a spring (see p14 in my book) others like the Hensoldt Dialytan ran the reticle in a dovetail, but actually threaded to the turret screw and with a spring beneath to negate slop in the threads. That was strong and simple enough with one knob but some (like the M84, Noske Type A and Zeiss Zielklein) used Oldham couplings to work double adjustments. The M84 scope made for the M1 rifle, at least, screwed the reticle assembly to not just one but both of the turrets.

After the war, screwed-down reticles may have gone out of style. Nickel still used the dovetail but simply held the reticle cell against the turret screw with a strong flat spring. This worked because the reticle cell's mass was small and was held securely against longitudinal recoil inertia.

The rot really set in when Redfield/Weaver suspended the entire erector set, any power scroll and often the reticle in a tube held against the turret screws by springs, thus providing the 'constantly centered reticle'. Because the erector tube was five or 10 times the weight of the old reticle cell and 'hinged' at the back, the front would dive in the outer tube when the rifle rose in recoil.

In case you doubt that an erector tube can do that, I have a You-tube video somewhere that shows entire scopes can flex down at the front under recoil, even when mounted on tactical rifles with no drop at heel.

As you say, really big rifles are probably safer just with receiver sights, but these need to be tough, too, not held in unsupported cross arms that can be bent down in a fall.

Cheers
'Sam'

Yes even receiver sights or iron sights can be destroyed by man, Ive seen hunter/shooters that could destroy an 300 LB anvil with a powder puff..

I am a fan of the centered reticle as you know and realize your correctness in that through our friendship have adopted sightihg in or checking my zero at least a day before any hunt, and its paid off for more than scope problems, also always have a sighted in extra scope for the rifle I intend to hunt with or at least have a extra gun. I always know my gun is sighted in and so far Ive had no problems that I had for years off and on..Maintenence pays off on about anything..

Off set reticle is a qualified term meaning the scope is off set to the side of the action such as you see on a win mod 94 and some foreign guns. All I can say is if your referring to this then they IMHO are an abomination, nothing more, nothing less.

I posted on the other option of Offset reticle which you are probably referring to on this thread.

Yes, Ray, offsetting scopes never made too much sense because even with the fattest comb you'd be hard-pressed to get proper cheek weld.

I've been reading a large batch of 1970s-and-'80s Handloader magazines and am amazed how casual writers were in mentioning they had to change image-movement scopes that went haywire during range testing. No one seemed surprised at this, it was almost like saying batteries went flat in a flashlight.

I don't suppose anyone will ever go back to making the old scopes I like, largely because it would require much loss of face, esp. if they continued to make image-movement models.

With eccentric inserts such as sold by Burris, I think they could make new sense, though, and could be properly mounted more easily than image-movement types because you would not have to turn the scope or count clicks first.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
All I can say is if your referring to this then they IMHO are an abomination, nothing more, nothing less.

I am often surprised by people's preferences.
On several occasions you have said that a scope mounted high on a stock shaped for irons, on which you can't get a cheeck weld at all is just fine. Yet an offset scope is an "abomination"? I fail to see much difference between the two, but honestly I prefer to have the scope mounted to suit the stock (or vice versa) so that a nice, comfortable cheeck-weld is a given.