quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Don't want to start another big argument here. Just out of curiosity, how many of these "nitrogen-filled" scopes Weaver built do you figure still had nitrogen filled tubes a year after being bought and mounted?

I have several of the El Paso steel tubed scopes that are still in perfect working order. Do you remember the ad where Chill Wills (or perhaps Andy Devine) drove a nail using the Weaver scope? Not so fragile I'd say.
I have a T12 from back then that I use for load developement that been on and off everything from a .222 to a .338 and it's just like a Timex.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
Don't want to start another big argument here. Just out of curiosity, how many of these "nitrogen-filled" scopes Weaver built do you figure still had nitrogen filled tubes a year after being bought and mounted?

I have several of the El Paso steel tubed scopes that are still in perfect working order. Do you remember the ad where Chill Wills (or perhaps Andy Devine) drove a nail using the Weaver scope? Not so fragile I'd say.
I have a T12 from back then that I use for load developement that been on and off everything from a .222 to a .338 and it's just like a Timex.

I probably have as many Weavers as anyone....at least 4 dozen on rifles right now, and a bunch more laid away on my shop shelves waiting for their own rifles to appear.

For field use they are one of my favourites, still, and probably always will be. But, being in perfect working order and having nitrogen still in them are two different things.

I LIKE weavers, but like many other of the early scopes with notrogen in them, they were far from gas-tight. Over time, sometimes an amazingly short time, the nitrogen was "pumped" out and more humid air "pumped" in due to temp changes....often not around the lens bell threads, but where the adjustment mechanism opening is in the tube.

Most modern scopes have pretty much cured that problem with much better sealing, but that is also why a lot of modern scopes are not filled with nitrogen, but ARE nitrogen-purged.

If moist air is removed during assembly by nitrogen purging, and replaced by dry air in a system which is sealed well enough that moist air can't get in afterward, all is well in field use.

Driving a nail into or with a scope proves nothing, except it certainly will let moist air in when the nail is removed, if the nail is driven through the tube wall. Otherwise, as long as the nail doesn't hit a lense or an adjustment mechanism part, any scope should still work well.

Basically what they were proving in that demo was that the steel tube is strong, and that it is exceptionally impressive advertising.

Since you have waaay more Weavers than I do, you obviously have a broader sample. But, when I say the scopes are in perfect working order, I mean that: leak proof, fog proof, clear lenses, and the adjustments are repeatable. After all these years of being changed from rifle to rifle and being adjusted with each different rifle, the T12 will still shoot a box.
Don't get me wrong. you or anyone else can put whatever they want to on their rifles. Whatever peels their bananna. However, if someone is talking about "open" sights and mean the buckhorn or express sights that are halfway down the barrel, they're not doing themselves any favors. A ghost ring peep or receiver sights is another case entirely. With practice, a fellow can do some fine work with those. I watched an Army shooting team compete in a 1000 match and they were shooting .308s from M14s with receiver sights. I asked the range master if they weren't at a disadvantage shooting GI rifles against higher powered rifles with scopes? he replied that those M14s were like no M14s you've ever seen and the guys could shoot possibles if they got their dope right. He also said, "don't forget, this is what these guys do for a living."
One final thing though. If a fellow is used to a scoped rifle and that is what he has been practicing with, then, if the scope goes south, he is merely changing like for like. And he continues hunting. he doesn't have to change his rifle handling technique or shift gears from scope to irons.
But, as I said, for you folks that insist that you have iron sights on your rifles, then some of those see-through mounts might be just the thing.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Since you have waaay more Weavers than I do, you obviously have a broader sample. But, when I say the scopes are in perfect working order, I mean that: leak proof, fog proof, clear lenses, and the adjustments are repeatable. After all these years of being changed from rifle to rifle and being adjusted with each different rifle, the T12 will still shoot a box.
Don't get me wrong. you or anyone else can put whatever they want to on their rifles. Whatever peels their bananna. However, if someone is talking about "open" sights and mean the buckhorn or express sights that are halfway down the barrel, they're not doing themselves any favors. A ghost ring peep or receiver sights is another case entirely. With practice, a fellow can do some fine work with those. I watched an Army shooting team compete in a 1000 match and they were shooting .308s from M14s with receiver sights. I asked the range master if they weren't at a disadvantage shooting GI rifles against higher powered rifles with scopes? he replied that those M14s were like no M14s you've ever seen and the guys could shoot possibles if they got their dope right. He also said, "don't forget, this is what these guys do for a living."
One final thing though. If a fellow is used to a scoped rifle and that is what he has been practicing with, then, if the scope goes south, he is merely changing like for like. And he continues hunting. he doesn't have to change his rifle handling technique or shift gears from scope to irons.
But, as I said, for you folks that insist that you have iron sights on your rifles, then some of those see-through mounts might be just the thing.

Beeman, I wasn't trying to insult anyone or their scopes, or to tell them what they should be using in sights.

Just trying to remind them that many of those advertising gimmicks are just that, advertising gimmicks.

My Weavers all track well, and I still have some from the 1940s...that's why I used them in competitive benchrest instead of Leupolds.

My Weaver T-36s MicroTracs tracked far better than my Leupold 36s; still do. The Leupolds had/have better glass, but the Weaver glass was and is good enough to win with, so I preferred the more certain adjustments of the Weavers.

I even had a bench gun fall off a cleaning rack from a height of maybe 3-1/2' in the middle of a match one time, landing with the 13# rifle right on top of the scope and the scope landing on a solid concrete floor . It bent the steel tube enough I had to add about 24" of elevation to get back on target. The reliable Weaver adjustments got me there though, and I won the match!

So I wasn't knocking Weaver scopes. Just trying to point out that the nitrogen-filling didn't really last in the early scopes of any brand including Weavers (because of the poor seals in those days), and was pretty much an ad gimmick. Still is, as long as the scopes are purged well and sealed well because now scopes are sealed well enough they don't need to be filled with nitrogen.

And, if I recall my college chemistry well enough from about 56 years ago, I think maybe water vapor molecules could be enough larger than nitrogen molecules that a scope could leak out all of its nitrogen and still not take in any water vapor...which might explain why some scopes which may have lost their nitrogen still don't fog.

Doesn't mean every scope has lost all its nitrogen, of course, but quite a few of the older ones will have.

This might be a stupid question, so please forgive me if it is, but a buddy of mine had a remington 700 mountain rifle in 30-06. I remember looking at how thin and whippy that barrel looked. I always wondered, on a mountain rifle with a super-thin barrel, is there any concern with drilling and tapping into a barrel that's already taken down to it's bare minimum? I understand that you can attach without d&t, but it also seems to be the most common method.

I have another question also. While with the QR rings, it's easy to take the scope off of the rifle but on my rifles, the bases are screwed on with lock tite. If you remove the scope but leave the bases, can you still see the rear sight over them? I'd take a scope off to see but I don't have any rifles with the rear sights that are halfway down the barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by Rub Line:
This might be a stupid question, so please forgive me if it is, but a buddy of mine had a remington 700 mountain rifle in 30-06. I remember looking at how thin and whippy that barrel looked. I always wondered, on a mountain rifle with a super-thin barrel, is there any concern with drilling and tapping into a barrel that's already taken down to it's bare minimum? I understand that you can attach without d&t, but it also seems to be the most common method.

The threads are #6 X 48.....and are quite fine.....and I use a two tap system...drill to within .03 of the bore....tap and then use a ground tip tap to get at least three threads....It's not difficult if one has a milling machine capable of control to a couple thousandths of an inch...yes...it's not hard to do.

I have had five scopes destroyed or had fail in the last ten years while out hunting.
I refuse to have a rifle that does not have good iron sights on it.

I am not fussy between open v rear sight and a bead front sight - or a receiver peep sight. Either is excellent.


People think you need a degree in 'old-school' to work with iron sights but, its not true. Go and do some shooting with it and you will discover you are not giving up much in the accuracy department.
There is no magic involved, and it is not hard.

In rainy weather I will use them by preference over a scope and in the bush when calling animals in.
But, I have made perfectly straightfroward shots with them in open coutnry out to 250 yards.

If you are getting a mountain rifle then put iron sights on it. They dont cost much at all. You can usually scrounge some old ones at gunshops or off an old rifle, or someone will have an old box of them. Drilling and tapping holes dont cost much, or soldering.

For a dedicated mountain rifle I would use a rear aperture, and a blade (square topped) front sight.
Sight them in before you put the scope on - even go shoot an animal with them, to make you realise that they actually work.

The scope is the most fragile part of your set up. And if your on an expensive hunt, or spend a longer periods of time out where your a couple or a few days walk from your truck then iron sights are a wise investment.

If you shoot only not far from your truck and dont have to carry everything around on your back miles from the road, then its not so important.
It depends on the kind of hunting your do.

I prefer to have iron sights on all my rifles, sighted in of course.

I also have an extra scope, zeroed in mounted in quality QD mounts for all of my traveling rifles. Especially if I am only taking one rifle on the hunt...

I have to agree with all those who advocate for irons, even or especially on a mountain rifle. The weight difference is one area but the most enfluencial area of hill hunting with irons is the fantastic carryability of a rifle without the ill balance of a scope. I carry my scope in a leather scope bag and only install it if lighting or target visibility requires the scope. This by far my prefered type of iron sight even though I have entirely adequate bridge mounted apertures as well.


I did have the aperture stem shortened to more freely accomadate clearance when rapidly working the bolt with the scope on.

Actually in todays World, if you have a mountain rifle without iron sights, it is cheaper, to pick quality QD mounts, and have 2 scopes, in rings sighted in, than it would be to have iron sights installed...

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Actually in todays World, if you have a mountain rifle without iron sights, it is cheaper, to pick quality QD mounts, and have 2 scopes, in rings sighted in, than it would be to have iron sights installed...

Maybe not exactly true since my Leupy's start at about $300 and rings add additional to that. But, damn close and, if your eyes are getting like mine, usually much better than irons.

The reality is, irons are nice to have for a backup. The reality is also that most people can't shoot irons worth a darn. For them, it is much better to have a backup scope on hand. Most good ring/base systems are repeatable enough that the margin of error is insignificant.

That said, on some rifles, I like irons, even if I may never use them. On others, I carry a back up scope. But usually, I bring a second rifle with irons too since scope failure is not the only thing to disable a rifle.

It all depends on the type of hunting you are engaged in.

quote:

Originally posted by Von Gruff:
I have to agree with all those who advocate for irons, even or especially on a mountain rifle. The weight difference is one area but the most enfluencial area of hill hunting with irons is the fantastic carryability of a rifle without the ill balance of a scope. I carry my scope in a leather scope bag and only install it if lighting or target visibility requires the scope. This by far my prefered type of iron sight even though I have entirely adequate bridge mounted apertures as well.


I did have the aperture stem shortened to more freely accomadate clearance when rapidly working the bolt with the scope on.

Gary, I agree completely. A bolt action without a scope is a relief in the hills, and its hard to take a scope seriously after you have got used to not using one for a period. (You put it on the rifle and pick it up and go; "Seriously?")
I don't really consider a scope as being 'part' of a rifle. To me it's an optional accessory.

BTW, nice peice in the magazine this month. I like the shot with your two rifles against the old stone hut. I got one on the moose in that issue.

Are you seriously trying to sell the .404?

quote:

Originally posted by Carlsen Highway:

BTW, nice peice in the magazine this month. I like the shot with your two rifles against the old stone hut. I got one on the moose in that issue.

Are you seriously trying to sell the .404?

Thanks James that is a really nice part of the country and I will be back there next week as a 60th treat for myself, and yes the 404 is seriously for sale. I have had to except that I will never be able to use it to its potential in NZ and will not be able to get off shore to hunt it either.

Looking at those rifles has always given me enjoyment!