After a long search and wait, I finally got a Rem 722 in 300 Savage. 1949 model....I have an old Weaver K4 that will go on it, but what would be more proper for this rifle? I am not a purist, but just want one that shows the kids that Grandpa could make it work without a supermag and mildots. Thanks!

The scope on it (K-4) was THE popular hunting scope of the average man at that time...except for those who used the K-2.5 or the K-3.

Gun nuts and those with more money tended to use Lymans, B&Ls, things of that sort, but the typical working man still wasn't making anything like $100 a week gross at work in 1949, so they went with the $37.50 Weaver, if and when they could afford to.

Things started to make a sea-change about 1962 or so....when the Redfields became THE popular scopes for Joe Average. They changed again about 1976-77 when the Leupolds took over as the number one choice.

Here's my 1949 made Rem 722 in 300 Savage.
It's got a Leupold 3x scope on it, with Leupold QR rings and mounts. The scope is not exactly period for the rifle, but it's close. And, the QR rings and mounts are definitely not period. I use them so I can remove scopes when I store rifles in the safe; that makes for better rifle nesting in the safe. If I was going to go "Perfect Period", I'd install a Weaver fixed power scope with Weaver rings and mounts. I have old Weaver scopes and attaching hardware that I could install. I just like the Leupold fixed 3x better.

Don

quote:

I finally got a Rem 722 in 300 Savage. 1949 model....I have an old Weaver K4 that will go on it, but what would be more proper for this rifle?

Bingo...you've hit a homer with the old steel K-4 Weaver.

IMO this IS the right scope for the rifle!

My .300 Savage (Rem Classic) wears a K3 and just to carry through with the concept, I only reload for it with a Lee Loader. I've used it to kill several WTs.

I have two 300 Savages,one in M-99A Savage and the other I believe to be a M-99E rifle. Each belonged to each one of my grandfathers. Both wear their original Weaver scopes that were installed in that era. One is a K-1.5 with a post reticle and the other is a K-4 w/crosshair.
The K-4 is a unique scope. It has weaver low mount rings that cannot be removed from the scope unless the scope is dis-assembeld. I personally have never seen this before and an elderly friend of mine, who is a retired stock maker and has been all over the gun world, he too has never seen a Weaver like this - with this rather permanent ring set up.

I started hunting with the K scopes I replaced them all with newer and better scopes over the years. I perfer Leupolds better glass better scopes over all.

The older weavers were a big improvement over irons sights but there are much better scopes out there now.

quote:

Originally posted by Rae59:
I have two 300 Savages,one in M-99A Savage and the other I believe to be a M-99E rifle. Each belonged to each one of my grandfathers. Both wear their original Weaver scopes that were installed in that era. One is a K-1.5 with a post reticle and the other is a K-4 w/crosshair.
The K-4 is a unique scope. It has weaver low mount rings that cannot be removed from the scope unless the scope is dis-assembeld. I personally have never seen this before and an elderly friend of mine, who is a retired stock maker and has been all over the gun world, he too has never seen a Weaver like this - with this rather permanent ring set up.

Those solid Weaver rings were used just prior to the introduction of the two piece ones. I've owned and used several of them on my rifles years ago.. Of course, they also required the older Weaver scopes which had separate parts for the tube, the objective bell and the ocular bell. When the one piece tube and objective bell scopes came into being, the one-piece rings dropped out of use except on the K-1s, K-2.5s and K-3s. Even there they were enough of a PITA to put on the scopes that they were relatively soon discontinued.

At the same time, it was fairly common to own several different reticules and change them out in the K-series as a shooter's uses and moods varied. "Them were the good old days", when things were made from parts, and "flexibility at low cost" was a standard design consideration.

P.S.: I still have a spare pair or two of those solid one-piece Weaver rings in my parts bins, if you ever decide you desperately need some more of them.

My 722 in 257 Roberts was made in 1948 and it has a 1.5X Lyman Alaskan scope with a post.


Nothing wrong with the optics.
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
My 722 in 257 Roberts was made in 1948 and it has a 1.5X Lyman Alaskan scope with a post.
[Nothing wrong with the optics.
Butch

Butch - You are using my very favourite scope in the whole world right there. They have great optics, I think, and also very long eye relief.

Yours is the "civilian" model. The same scope, with the same reticule was used (in Korea at least) as a U.S. Army sniper scope. The only differences with the military ones was that they had a sliding sun shade about 2-1/2" to 3" long which was semi-permanently mounted on the front of the tube, and the military ones were a sort of a light O.D. parkerized finish, not blued. I preferred the military ones, but still think the world of the civilian versions too.

I've owned a bunch of both, and think they both are the best hunting scopes ever, even though they have the 7/8" tubes which today are sort of "odd-ball out". The later Leupold "Alaskan" imitation doesn't compare with them in my opinion.

AC, this was Mike Walker's,Mr. Remington, personal deer rifle. I was lucky to be able to purchase it earlier this month. Yes, the optics are very clear and the eye relief is great.
Butch

quote:

but the typical working man still wasn't making anything like $100 a week gross at work in 1949,

The average young guy with 4 years of (union) service in the Bell telephone system made less than $100 a week in '65.

quote:

Originally posted by Wyoharris:
After a long search and wait, I finally got a Rem 722 in 300 Savage. 1949 model....I have an old Weaver K4 that will go on it, but what would be more proper for this rifle? I am not a purist, but just want one that shows the kids that Grandpa could make it work without a supermag and mildots. Thanks!

B&L Baltur BAlfor or Balvar, Bushnell Scopechief, Fecker Commando, Kollmorgan Bear Cub , Leupold & Stevens Plainsman Pioneer, Norman-Ford Texan, Pecar, Stith Bear Cub, Unertl Falcon Hawk Condor would all be correct vintage for your rifle. There are plenty to choose from.

quote:

Originally posted by Jim C. <><:

quote:

but the typical working man still wasn't making anything like $100 a week gross at work in 1949,

The average young guy with 4 years of (union) service in the Bell telephone system made less than $100 a week in '65.

You are definitely right Jim. I was working for the Western Electric side of the Bell system in 1955, and taking home $28 for a 40-hour week, including my night shift premium. They paid LOUSY for the first two years a fella worked for them, then the pay improved quite a bit. But you had to eat for those first two years by hook or by crook. After that you were okay.

A-C, I don't understand what you mean by PITA to put on.
the rings have the usual 2 screws on one side to allow the rings to open up and slide back and forth to be attached to the varying base dimensions that would be encountered on different rifle models. The only difference is the top "loop", if you will, does not hook under the lower portion of the ring as a conventional Weaver detachable ring does. It is permantly attached to the lower.

Please explain.

(I wish I could post pictures. I get really intimidated by the process of doing so.)

Wyoharris: Your K-4 would be hard to improve on for a period scope. While the optics (lenses) of the old steel K's were of marginal quality compared to today's glass, they provided a reasonably clear sight picture, and the adjustments on the K's were as accurate as any scope made then or now. The steel tube makes them one of the hardiest scopes ever made. So long as you don't hunt in a cold/damp climate where fogging is a problem, the K-4 is a great choice.

If potential fogging is a problem, I would look for a Leupld M-7 in either 3x or 4x. The M-7 would be just a couple of years or so later than the production date of your 722, but close enough to call it "period". The externally adjusted Leupold "Mountaineers" sell pretty cheap on ebay when they come up, but finding the bases and "adjusto mounts" for your rifle might be a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Rae59:
A-C, I don't understand what you mean by PITA to put on.
the rings have the usual 2 screws on one side to allow the rings to open up and slide back and forth to be attached to the varying base dimensions that would be encountered on different rifle models. The only difference is the top "loop", if you will, does not hook under the lower portion of the ring as a conventional Weaver detachable ring does. It is permantly attached to the lower.

Please explain.

(I wish I could post pictures. I get really intimidated by the process of doing so.)

The ones I am talking about do not fold aside or "open up" more than about 1/8"-to-1/4" without starting to bend the ring strap. Once bent they are never quite the same afterward.

On scopes with an objective bell, the bell must be removable or you cannot slide that end of the tube through the one-piece ring at all. You could remove the ocular bell and slide it on from that end, but then you would have to remove the adjustment turrets, then put on the ring, and re-install the turrets if you wanted the front ring placed forward of the turrets. Luckily, on some of the earliest Weavers, the objective bell was removable, so that's how the front ring was put on...remove the objective bell, slide the ring on, and then put the objective bell back on.

Also, even on the ones with a single diameter tube and no objective bell (so you can just slide the front ring on) you have to remove the ocular bell to slide the second ring on from that end (the eyepiece end). That's easy enough to do on most early Weavers, but it is still a PITA because it can allow dust inside the scope while it is apart, and of course requires readjusting the ocular after it is re-installed. Any dust that gets in there will appear as magnified black dots.

And then, of course, some of the later Weaver K series scopes are designed to prevent the ocular from being removed at all. It can be done, but not easily.

I have, and sometimes still use those older Weaver rings, but all-in-all, I much prefer the newer Weaver rings of about 1960 onward.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
AC, this was Mike Walker's,Mr. Remington, personal deer rifle. I was lucky to be able to purchase it earlier this month. Yes, the optics are very clear and the eye relief is great.
Butch

Butch, that is a great rifle to own! Congrats!

For a little more history, when they were making those scopes, Lyman procured the lenses from Bausch and Lomb which, at that time, was one of the best lens makers in the world.

I believe that Weaver was the first scope company to nitrogin fill their scopes to prevent fogging. I have a number of the old K model scopes and they are still air tight (non fogging) and clear. I don't know how much clarity you need to kill something but mine work for me. Maybe if we rubbed a little barvarian sweat on them, they would be worth a lot more?
And I know that Weaver was the first scope to have centered cross hairs.

Actually they do not fill their scopes. They purge them with nitrogen. You won't find any if you take one apart.
Butch