The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Optics Older S&B low power scopesGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Older S&B low power scopes | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
A local auction house has a few vintage Schmidt and Bender scopes up for auction. Two of them - a 1.25-4x20 and a 1.5-6 - look to have quick detach mounts similar to Talleys.  Question number one is what bases do you think will fit this? Is this meant for something Euro-specific? Second question - if the prices don't get too high, would they be worth bidding on with the intention of putting one or the other on a 9.3x62? Here is the markings on one of them. I assume they are both coming from the same seller or estate.  Any suggestions on where I could find more info on these scopes? Many thanks for the help and advice. John | ||
|
| one of us |
Those are top quality scopes. The rings look like they are Talley or maybe kimber, but you would have to measure the width off the dovetails, my money is on Talley especially if they have two screws on the top, 30mm quick detach. I would look very closely at the lenses for any sign of scratching and internal fogging, if the lenses are clean they are pretty bulletproof scopes. BB | |||
|
| One of Us |
Levers look distinctly like Kimber or Len Brownell. As BB said, you need to see the entire ring. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Unfortunately the rifles they came off are not in the auction. I did ask. I see a pile of .375 H&H and .416 Taylor ammo in the auction so I assume the scopes may have come off those rifles. | |||
|
One of Us |
I can't see your pictures but assume the scopes are modern, image-moving ones. If they lack rubber eyepieces they may not be, though, and they would be the ones I would look for. Modern S&Bs probably have better glass than my old ones but, assuming they have the usual articulated erector tubes, you have to wonder about their use on anything that kicks much. If they have come off a .416 I would not be reassured, quite the contrary. Makers crow about the g-forces their modern scopes can withstand but that is basically because the design has a fault that has to be beefed up to work for long and then tested to see if it does. (It's a bit like reinforcing a Lee Enfield to withstand the pressures of a 308W or testing one rechambered to 300 magnum, as linked in the sporterised military rifles forum.) John Barsness wrote late last century that Zeiss destructively tested every scope and sold those that survived. He claimed this led to many failing long before their expected time. | |||
|
| One of Us |
| |||
|
| one of us |
Not positive but I think some of those older ones might have been 26mm tube... be cautious. I'm what you call your basic famous. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well, it certainly looks old enough and West Germany indicates before 1989, so that scope may be reticle-movement - a good thing, for strength and field blending reasons, if you don't mind taking some trouble when mounting it. If so, it could be excellent for a 9.3x62. Make sure the knobs turn, though - those old scopes were so solid that owners may not have touched the adjustments for decades, leading to the clockwork seizing up. Those dovetail mounts look so close together that I wouldn't be surprised if they are for a .22LR. That they appear to be on complete rings would also indicate a .22, if installed in Germany. PS: the barrel does look steel, so yes, it will probably be 26mm. This does not necessarily make a great problem, though, as rings can still be found. My favorite solution now is to get 1" Burris Signature rings and bore or sand out the Nylon-like inserts. If the the scope doesn't line up to bore sight with the standard inserts, Burris makes eccentric ones that will bring it into line. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Good advice on making sure the knobs turn. Both scopes come with quick detach rings on them. I think, as someone said above, they are of the Len Brownell design. If so, older Warne Premier bases would work if I can find NOS somewhere. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have one of those 1.5-6X (around 3000 serial numbers higher than that) and several of the fixed 6x42 of what appears to be the same generation. I've been happy with them and find them optically excellent. Really heavy though! If I must be critical of the 1.5-6x I do find the FOV limited for a low magnification scope, but I haven't measured it. | |||
|
one of us |
This is one of the most ridiculous things I have seen posted in a while. Bobby Μολὼν λαβέ The most important thing in life is not what we do but how and why we do it. - Nana Mouskouri | |||
|
| One of Us |
I got to check them out yesterday. Both have clear, non-scratched glass on them. The 1.25-4 has a German 4 reticle while the 1.5-6 had a duplex reticle. After turning the adjustments a couple of times, both moved freely and easily. I am thinking I'll be bidding on the 1.25-4x scope. I have found a seller on EBay that has tons of NOS Warne Premier bases. If the QD rings are really the Len Brownell/Kimber of Oregon ones, they should work just fine with the Warne bases. BTW based upon what I saw on EBay, the rings might be worth more than the scope! The prices were outrageous especially when you can get new Talleys that are similar and equally well made. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That works as trolling, Bobby, but what about some evidence or at least the guts of your argument? I remember your spiel about shooting hogs at the bottom of your garden using scopes that can show a bee's appendage on a moonless night, but what can you tell us about their mechanicals? It may be the modern S&Bs use some other means of centering the reticle, like Bushnell's old Scopechief II or the Pecar Champion, but most brands use the articulated erector assembly. This generally has the whole erector set, power scroll and reticle slung in a four-inch tube that can swing in an arc reciprocal to the rising rifle under recoil. This breaks erector springs, probably the main place scopes peg out these days. Stout springs may be used to stop the swinging but if ever you put such scopes on calibres beyond the springs' resistance, the violence of returning to battery will really batter the erector tube. So, modern scopes can and often do fail long before the old ones with nothing much free to move inside. Many of the old ones actually had the erector cell fixed or screwed down in an Oldham coupling so it could not move. Even those that used a spring to hold it only had about one-tenth of the mass to worry about, and that was often held in a dovetail perpendicular to the longitudinal punishment of recoil inertia. You may not have had a scope fail but I don't recall that your little guns are in particularly hard-kicking calibres. | |||
|
| one of us |
I've used multiple Klassiks, two different Polars, several Zeniths and a Stratos and never had any mechanical issues. The only issue I ever had with an SB was that a brand-new one arrived with a couple tiny specs in the field of view. How may Schmidts have failed for you...or have you even used these scopes? Remember making derogatory comments about illuminated reticles when you had no first-hand experience with them other than handling them in a store? I can pull the thread if you'd like. You can try and wax prophetically all you want about how "superior" old scopes are, but some of us who actually use optics know better. As to your accusation of "trolling," all I will say is that if I don't have first-hand experience with something, you're not going to hear me rambling on-and-on about its pluses or minuses. Bobby Μολὼν λαβέ The most important thing in life is not what we do but how and why we do it. - Nana Mouskouri | |||
|
| one of us |
Well, here are most of the SBs I have used -- and that have served me without a single mechanical hiccup. So let's see the SBs you have used that have failed you. I'll be patiently waiting.    screencapture           Bobby Μολὼν λαβέ The most important thing in life is not what we do but how and why we do it. - Nana Mouskouri | |||
|
| one of us |
I have an old set of Len Brownells bases and rings, they are dainty and beautiful with checkered levers..They have worked well on a number of big bores Ive owned...Hard to come by and I have low bases for pre 64 win, Mauser 98 LR and maybe SR also? Good stuff. Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Nice pictures, Bobby, but how do the scopes work inside? My old S&Bs were a mixed bag. One 1.75-6x variable had strange glass with distortions, and the lens cement had gone yellow. The turrets had also seized up but that might in fact denote extreme stability, whereby the previous owner had not needed to touch them for years. My 4x looks very good through the lenses and in eye relief but the eyepiece bezel seems made for a scope of much shorter eye relief, so you can clearly see the grooves and sun shines off them when raised at times. Maybe, having had so many different models of scopes on your rifles has saved them from any prolonged use that might sort the sheep from the goats. My objections to illumination are mostly philosophical. Having certain brands where the scope is guaranteed for life but the electrics only for two years is a signal - and things needing batteries are disappointments waiting to happen, no matter how long the charges supposedly last. Since fair-chase limits are matters sportsmen should ponder, my line in the sand is use of anything electrical in the actual getting of game. Pest destruction is, of course, another matter. | |||
|
| one of us |
Bottom line: You insinuated the internals of SB scopes were suspect but have no personal experience to corroborate that -- just as I had figured...  As to lens cement turning yellow, anyone who's worked with optics knows that happens in MANY of the decades-old scopes, including those you tout as vastly superior to modern developments. Heck, I've seen an old Pecar -- a favorite of yours -- in which a lens FELL OUT while being used on a .243 WCF at a shooting range near Victoria, TX.  Bobby Μολὼν λαβέ The most important thing in life is not what we do but how and why we do it. - Nana Mouskouri | |||
|
| One of Us |
No, Bobby, I did not insinuate anything. I asked you, our most-vehement defender of modern S&Bs, to explain how they work. I don't imagine they're any worse than 95% of other scopes made today but, conceptually, that's not saying much. The only worthwhile mechanical improvements within the past few years that I have heard about are Swarovski's helical erector springs, the Burris Posi-Lock (along with their Posi-align ring inserts) and the March Genesis. I was hoping you might be able assure me that S&B had also made some brave departure from the flawed concept of the Redfield/Weaver erector-tube. Yes, many brands' lens cement can turn yellow, including that of Kahles, one of my favorites. I was not suggesting that S&B's cement was worse than others, just listing the deficiencies to show that even in the good old days nothing was perfect. The reason I hold Pecar in high regard is not because of the lenses but because it never succumbed to the reticle decadence. As I said, they even had their own way of constant centering, simply by putting a field stop around the FFP reticle. That was a cheat, too, since it just blinded us to the real situation, cut the field of view and added tunnel vision (all sins shared by conventional image-movement). However, it maintained the mechanical integrity of reticle-movement, where the erector set is lodged solidly and only the reticle-cell assembly moves under adjustment. That lens that fell out probably saw the company it had to keep and thought: I can't stand this, I'm getting out of here! | |||
|
| one of us |
 You said this BEFORE I even joined the thread.
Bobby Μολὼν λαβέ The most important thing in life is not what we do but how and why we do it. - Nana Mouskouri | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well, Bobby, I think I've explained why I think that, assuming they share the usual image-movement design. You tell us if they don't! Any way I'm off deer hunting for a week in half an hour, so the ball's in your court. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The auction completed tonight. With premium, the realized price on each of these scopes was $417. That was more than I was willing to pay for an older scope even though they both were in good shape. I did end up with a Bausch & Lomb Balvar 1.5-6x made in Japan. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Sorry to hear the prices got too high, John. They have been going up recently, perhaps because people are beginning to realise reticle-movement really is better in the long run. I hope your B&L works for you. I like the 1.5-6× power range. I've got three (Zeiss, Hensoldt and Nickel) and have put the Hensoldt on my old Sako .338. Reticle-movement and having a rail, it took some mounting, of course. I'd been using the Nickel in Blaser dovetails on Optilock bases but my fitter-turner mate said he could get things a lot lower using my old Redfield JR bases. He made new dovetails and mounted the single-turret Hensoldt so well that the first shot at 100 yards was spot on with the reticle centred, and 9mm lower than the Nickel had been. I now keep the Supra in the gun case, still set up ready to go in case of emergency. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
