......well not exactly abuse, but how much of a pounding can an old scope take ?? I have an old Pecar Berlin 26mm 4x36 scope on my Siamese Mauser, currently in 7.62x54R but soon to be rebarrelled to 405 Grenadier.......the question is will it hold up under recoil ??



Roger

I've owned Pecars and like them but, for various reasons, have not used them long enough to answer your question with real authority.

I take it the 36 in your 4x36 refers to luminosity, not objective diameter. This tells us that the objective is about 24mm, meaning the scope is really meant for daylight use, probably on a .22RF.

The bigger Pecars, like the 4x81, had a reputation for toughness on average Aussie centrefires. Early ones, like yours, were all reticle-movement, which should make them more robust than the magician's props made now.

Whether it can take heavy recoil for long could depend a bit on what kind of reticle it has. I suspect a simple crosswire or flat-top post with horizontal wire might last longer than the iconic German #1, in which the post and sidebars are unsupported in the middle and can sag over time.

I don't know beans about the scope you are currently using on that rifle, but I do believe the Sightron scopes with their proprietary erector tube system is the most robust optic made. I have a cheap Sightron S1 on a rifle that came off a friend's 45/70 lever gun that he shot heavy bullets with and it didn't shake loose under recoil, and that gun would deliver a serious pounding to the guy holding it.

The tube itself is 26mm so the objective lens should be about 36mm...cant check at the moment, Im at work....and its a tapered post and crosshair.

Roger

I can see by your pic roughly the objective size but my estimation was based on this:

The square root of 36 is 6, which indicates the exit-pupil diameter (marginal in poor light); 6x4 (the power) = 24, which should coincide with the objective diameter. You could put a ruler or caliper across the front lens, of course.

The tapered post was often the best reticle available here in the 1950s and '60s but those scopes can have a good collector's value and might be too good to risk.

My advice would be to look for a bigger Pecar or small Kahles Helia Super from about the same time and sell the other scope or put it on a period .22. The best part of the Pecars IMHO is the spring-ball clicks when you wind the knob. The Kahles, on the other hand, can be a PITA to turn but certainly stays where you leave it. B.Nickel, Marburg scopes can be good, too, if you find one with no fungus or rail. Some of the other European scopes from the period, such as Zeiss and Swarovski, had no clicks but the turrets were heavily packed with grease and can be found seized up if the zero was not moved for decades.

I had a Kahles 2.3-7x32(mm) on my 338 magnum for 33 years and it withstood many shots, bumps and some unreasonable abuse.

quote:

Originally posted by Luckyducker:
I don't know beans about the scope you are currently using on that rifle, but I do believe the Sightron scopes with their proprietary erector tube system is the most robust optic made.

What is it about their system that makes Sightrons so good, Luckyducker?

I did know that successive companies like Weaver, Swaro, Leupold and Vortex have made efforts to rectify the inherent fragility of constantly centred scopes, though their advertising always skirts around the basic problems. Even after 60 years they are still bringing out new shades of lipstick for the pig

....lenses are about 26mm both ends, no clicks in the turrets.....may be time for the display shelf

Roger

"What is it about their system that makes Sightrons so good, Luckyducker?"

I had it explained to me when Sightron first came on the market by the owner of a gunshop in Garden City, KS, and I was impressed with the scopes but I just don't remember the particulars. This shop stared carrying Sightron products exclusively after their introduction. Sorry I can't back up my statement about Sightron's ruggedness. I have never heard of one failing from being shook loose from recoil.

Sounds like a good idea, Roger. Pecar made a 3x rimfire scope, too, but I don't know if it came with clicks, either. The scope won't have been made before 1945 because the name was apparently thought up by a GI who wanted to import the Koehler brand into America. I suspect he thought that name wouldn't play well in Peoria after the war, so made made up a name that sounded like the maker's initials (PK) as the Germans would pronounce it.

Thanks Luckyducker, I must look for info on the internet. I've been writing a book about these things and am interested to know any new developments.

It seems many brands serve well enough until someone puts them on a heavy kicker and fires it a lot, after which things go haywire. Though Atkinson, the AR member who does that, accepts the use of such scopes on regular rifles, I see his experience as analogous to proof testing guns, where a 50% overload might be used to check strength and predict durability. If a scope can't cope with a .458 for a hundred shots, I wouldn't trust it on my .338 for serious purposes either.

The problem with modern scopes is they have the erector set bouncing around inside, instead of fixed firmly as it used to be. I have identified at least five or six different ways this can give us grief but the industry and magazines are too invested in image-movement to admit there's a problem - except obliquely when a maker wants to assert it has made it stronger.

Todays scopes are head and shoulders over the old scopes of yesterday for the most part IMO..

If I wanted a tough scope I would go with the Leupold compact or the Leupold Alaskan if I could find one..

Like it or not, and cutting out all the surmised BS, iron sights are the best from a toughness standpoint and work fine up to about 200 yards for some and perhaps 300 yards for others, so they should at least be a consideration..

At least with open sights you might see if something has gone wrong. I had one front sight disappear from the dovetail but, fortunately, I keep another in the guncase. With the Lyman 66 that got bent down, it could be rezeroed - but looked bloody ugly.

No doubt irons can fail, but not nearly as likely as a scope with hard use..a front sight disappearing tells me it didn't fit properly in the dovetail but your right, Ive seen irons with puny stems break off..but a solid thick front sight blade is not going to break short of a miracle..Perhaps I should have clarified my post by stating a proper set of heavy duty irons properly installed or something on that order..

I still prefer a scope for most hunting, but all my rifles have iron sights for back up in some cases, and I use irons with the scope for backup in some cases, depending on what and where Im hunting. Ive had a lot of scope failures over the years and 0 iron sight failures failure.

I realize todays shooter/hunters cut their teeth on scopes and prefer scopes and don't trust irons and so be it...However I was raised shooting iron sights until in my early teens and still feel perfectly comfortable with them up to as much as perhaps 300 yards under ideal conditions, and 200 under most conditions.

Yeah, I should have tightened the dovetail or epoxied that post in. The peep sight has been straightened but the block under the right side awaits a decision on the right load to stone it to. A stop screw would be better but finding the space for it is the problem.