I am in the process of restoring a 1958 vintage Win M-70 Alaskan in .338 win mag. I would like to return it to period. What scopes should I look for that would be appropriate for that time period? I have even found a set of Winchester rings.

Your recomendations are appreciated.

Scoutmaster 54

quote:

Originally posted by Scout Master 54:
I am in the process of restoring a 1958 vintage Win M-70 Alaskan in .338 win mag. I would like to return it to period. What scopes should I look for that would be appropriate for that time period? I have even found a set of Winchester rings.

Your recomendations are appreciated.

Scoutmaster 54

My '58 vintage Model 70 .300 H&H wears a Weaver KV (2.75-5x) variable.

a lyman alaskan would work too.

Or, a Bausch and Lomb Balvar 4x or 8x.
I have a number of Leupold M7 and M8 3x scopes from that era on my rifles built back then.

Here's a Rem Model 722 in 300 Savage with a Leupold 3x on it. I would have preferred to have the scope mounted lower, however scopes get in the way in the safe. So, I'm using Leupold QR rings which are high by design. I must change that some day as I LOVE low mounted scopes.

quote:

I have even found a set of Winchester rings.

??? Didn't know they ever made them.

I think the advice you've received is on the right track.

A Weaver K-4 is pretty much the classic standard for rifles of that era. They are a tough scope with outstanding reticle adjustments, but their optics are a little fuzzy compared to today's scopes and their moisture sealing is marginal. If you plan to use the gun in its namesake state -- Alaska -- or similar climates, I would forego the Weaver.

The older Denver Redfields were frequently seen on mid-50's M70s. If you can find a 2-7x or 3-9x (without the TV-widescreen eyepiece -- yucch!), that would make an excellent performer. I remember in the mid-60's a teenage friend inheriting an M70 Featherweight .270 with a Redfield 3-9 mounted on it -- what a dream! There are usually a few Redfields for sale on ebay.

I have a Leupold M-7 4x in great shape and actually in the original box that I've had put away for a while for just such use on a period gun if I should run across the right one. Nothing has come along, so if that scope would be of interest to you, drop me a PM.

As mentioned above, the scopes that were available in 1958 are marginal at best. The seals will most likely be dry rotted, and none of them were filled with nitrogen to prevent fogging. Some, like the Lyman All-American and Weatherby Imperial will not have self-centering reticles. Others, like the Nickel Supra, might need 26mm rings.

Your best bet is to at least find one from the late '60s or '70sm that looks very similar to a 1958 model. If you find one from a comapny that is still in business, they should be able to reseal it if necessary.

Thanks for all the suggestions, I have an old Weaver V9 but it wouldn't be right for this project. I will do some looking about. I doubt I'll ever get to Alaska as the $ just are not in the picture. Yes, I have a set of origional period rings in Winchester packaging. They look just like Leupold rings with the same turn in make up in Winchester packaging. I doubt Winchester made them just sourced them, still it's a nice piece of history.

quote:

As mentioned above, the scopes that were available in 1958 are marginal at best. The seals will most likely be dry rotted, and none of them were filled with nitrogen to prevent fogging.

I beg to differ. 1958 Redfields and Leupolds were nitrogen filled, had coated lenses, and were given more attention in manufacture than any of today's optics. I would hardly call them "marginal". Nor would I call the Unertl, Lyman Perma-Center, or Lyman Alaskan lines "marginal".

The original Redfields have no factory warranty service, but if a 1958 Leupold gives you a problem with leakage (or anything else, send it in and they'll fix it for free. I have a 1964 Leupold (personally purchased new). It is admittedly six years later than we're talking about, but it serves as well today as the day it was new and provides virtually as good a sight picture as anything on today's market. A well cared-for Weaver from that era is also as good as it was the day it was made, but they never were as water-tight as some other makes (little need for water-tightness if you come from El Paso, Texas!)

By the way, nitrogen does not prevent fogging -- proper water sealing prevents fogging. Nitrogen is largely inert (at least to the internal materials in a scope) and prevents oxidation which might cause the seals or reticle adjustments to deteriorate. It is also easier to obtain a near-dry atmosphere with nitrogen than with "household" air. Maybe the dryness of nitrogen is what you're thinking of when you say "prevents fogging"; if so, you have a point.

Stonecreek,

I agree with you, indeed, about the quality of the optics and mechanics, even by today standards of the early Redfields Bear Cubs (Stith/Kollmorgen by the way), Lyman, Leupold Unertl and so on.
I still hav a Redfield Bear Cub 4x that rivals optically (and in mechanics I believe: it has more than 300 shots in the .375...) with today Zeiss I also have. Not in brightness, of course but in resolution...Really I don`t know wicht one is better....!!!!!

Regards

PH