I recently took my Leupold 6x off of my 300 HH and quickly realized just how much better the rifle handled without the scope. Problem is I just can't get used to the irons so now I am thinking about another scope. I do have two scopes laying around: an older Leupold Vari-X IIc (3x-9x) and a Weaver K1.5X. The Weaver is obviously lighter and less obtrusive, how inappropriate would it be to put the Weaver (post reticle) on the 300?

In my opinion that would be one of the few scopes Id put on a rifle of that class.

I am a stickler for period optics on classic rifles, although I prefer Peep sights an older scope such as what you have would fit the bill.

(Weaver post)


Id like to see pics oneday


Cal30

Leupold makes some lighter weight fix power scopes. Or their 1x4 is fairly light weight also.

I owned and own 7 or 8 older weavers they were ok in there time but there are a lot better scopes on the market now.

quote:

older weavers they were ok in there time but there are a lot better scopes on the market now.

I agree completely.


Cal30

Yes there are better scopes around today...for some purposes. There are also arguably better .300 Magnums around today than the Super .30 (.300 H&H).

But a person either wants a "period classic" or they don't. If they just want a rifle to hunt with they might go a whole other route.

But if they want a "period classic", a Weaver would be just fine...but not a K 1.5 version for a ,.300 H&H. That was NOT a scope COMMONLY used on the .300 H&H back in the day. I was there as were a number of the other "mature" shooters here, and though we may have seen one or two K-1.5s on .300 H&Hs, I seriously doubt most of us saw any more than one or two.

Most had higher power Weavers on them. Buyers of the .300 H&H in the Model 70 were generally "cutting edge", "pushing the envelope", type of guys of the era. And they often had more money than the average Joe too.

So, you would see a lot of "advanced" scopes on the early Model 70 rifles, mainly 2.5-Xs, 3-Xs, and most popular of all, 4-Xs. There were a fair number of 6-X scopes too, particularly Lymans.

Probably the most common, once they were available, were the Weaver K-4s. Before the Model 70 came to be, the Zeiss and Kahles 4-X models had a lot of popularity on Mauser bolt sporters, and a fair number of guys moved those scopes over to their new Model 70s.

Later on, among the wealthier dudes, in the 1950s they had one particular "big hitter"...the B&L BalVar 8. It sold at the time for a suggested retail of $125, while my gun shop was selling new Model 70s themselves for just under and just over $100 (!!), depending on what we had to pay wholesale for them, which varied a lot between wholesalers.

Anyway, a Weaver K-1.5 would be okay, but in the day most of those were used on Marlin lever actions and that sort of rifle. Most of the bolt guns had Weavers of K2.5 and up.

That is the delema of using a scope. The rifle gets too big and bulky. Try a receiver sight.
If you don't want to cut your stock for a receiver sight find another beater stock to cut.
A period scope will be bulkly also unless you get one of the little Leopold Alaskans with a 7/8" tube.
The choice is not about a period scope. The problem is really about you can't have it both ways. Either you get use to some form of metallic sight or live with the bulk of a scope.

Doublegun

Is it a prewar model, or later?

Does it have the low comb or the Monte carlo that Winchester used?

Id love to see pics of it.

By the way if you wish to sell the weaver I might be interested.


Cal30

Thanks for the discussion so far, guys. A little more info: the rifle was made in the early 50's and has the typical monte carlo-type stock. My first thought was to try to shoot with just the irons but I really don't think the designers at Winchester really designed the rifle to be shot with irons, only. It is pretty difficult to get down far enough on the stock to be comfortable and when I get down that far, well my 52-year old eyes aren't really up to the job. I would love to hang a Lyman 48 on the rig. I have one on my early G&H 7x57 and I can get the job done with that but why go through the process of find another stock to cut and then paying $$$ for a Lyman.

Here's a thought; if you look at most early scopes most had relatively small objective lenses. I doubt many would make the rifle look/feel bulky as do most modern scopes with 30+mm objectives. If my K1.5 in't the ticket then perhaps my solution is to find a more appropriate period correct scope. Not necessarily to be historically correct but as a matter of practicality. Those were the types of scopes that these rifles were actually designed to accommodate.

I'll mess around with the K1.5 for a while. I'm in the process of loading 200 and 220 gr bullets so I am not planning for this to be a long range rig. In the meantime I'll start poking around to find a scope that may be a little more appropriate.

As for new glass, I have nothing against new scopes. In fact, I have a bunch all of which are Leupolds. But there is something special about having an older scope on an older rifle that just feels right. Hell, if I wanted to have a state-of-the-art rig it wouldn't be a 300 HH anyway.

Please keep the thoughts coming. This is a great exchange. And if anyone does have a "vintage" scope that might be more appropriate, please PM me and perhaps we can make a deal.

Cheers,

JDG

Doublegun,
The receiver sight does not have to be a Lyman 48. If you talk yourself into a box you will not be able to change anything.
If you are into to period then you will have to pay the $$$. Remember the period scopes are often not too good optically and will still cost as much as a Lyman 48.

If that Weaver 1.5 is clear and bright, you will find that you can set your POI right over the top of the post at 150 yards or so and hit everything that you should be shooting at in the live game field position game. Load yourself some 220 RN's or 200 Nosler Partitions for longer range hunting and enjoy the fun! I think of the Low power flat top post scope sight as a partridge sight that I can see clearly! What you have to substitute for absolute clarity of the spot you are shooting at on a deer/elk at 9x instead you substitute practice and confidence that the middle of the ocular circle your brain and eye establish over the top of that post is still the center of your target area. Then when you pull the trigger, you will find that indeed it was! Practice on paper with confidence in mind and it will come.
Best regards,
dmw

The K1.5 will actually work fine on your .300, for the distances you'll likely be shooting game with 220 grain bullets. Back then, as now, the "cutting edge" guys used the higher power scopes because they believed "more is better"....that's the American way. It wasn't because they actually WERE better, at least not for woods deer hunting.

With the vintage of that gun, what I would keep my eye peeled for would be a 6-X Lyman with a "perma-center" reticule, but NOT a Lyman "All-American". The All-American was the scope generation after the one typical of that particular time. The Lyman will have a little bit bigger objective lens than the Weaver K-4 or K-6, but will be a real quality scope from the exact period your rifle as being regularly hunted with....the end of the 50s. The Lymans back then had lenses supplied by Baush & Lomb from their Rochester, New York plant, which at the end of the '30s was considered one of the four best optical glass suppliers in the world....right in the same league as Zeiss and Hensoldt (Schott, IIRC).

A really good period mount for your K-1.5 would be a steel Stith "Streamline" mount. It used the receiver sight holes and the dovetail for the open rear sights as mounting points. The objective lense for the K-1.5 fit completely inside a "tunnel" which was used in place of a ring for the front mounting, while the rear ring was part of an "L" shaped assembly which mounted using the receiver sight holes on the side of the rear bridge. They were strong as an ox, and looked really, really cool. I have owned several of them and they work very well.

I may have one here for a Model 70, but am not sure. Over the next month or so I'll look for it, and if I can find it, I'll let you know and give it to you for the postage. It deserves to be on a rifle working its butt off out in the woods. The odds are I either don't have it or won't be able to find it with all the mess of this move, but I'll check. I know I have one or two spares of them here somewhere. One is for a Savage M1899, and IIRC, the other is for a Model 70.

Anyway, Redfield Jr. mounts were also very popular at that time, so one of them would also be historically correct.

My 1.5 is clear as can be. I mounted it this evening just to get the feel for it and I like it. I'll get it bore-sighted and see what I can do with it out to 200-yards. I have long appreciated keeping things simple and my rifles are no exception.

This will probably never be a rifle I will have to bet my life on so it's mostly for fun and to test my ability. I'll post pictures after I get to spend some time at the range.

The Weaver 1.5x with Post & Crosshair was pretty much designed as an optical alternative to iron sights. It doesn't get any simpler or better.

when nostalgia makes you select an inferior choice, it has become a mental condition.

just my opinion.

oh, and before you go get the pitchforks and light the torches, I am using the same scope on my 10,75x68 retro gun.

Does it have to be a lyman 48.. Williams also make the foolproof in that era, and it doesn't require you to cut the stock in any way.

I like the Weaver K1.5x, I have three of them. I love the old Weavers, Lymans and Leupolds. I have lost track of how many Leupold 3x's I have but it is a bunch. The clarity of all three of my K1.5s is excellent and they seem to be exceptionally tough, being on my heavier recoiling rifles with no problems to date. However, none of my 1.5s have the post and cross hair, my favorite reticle for low power scopes. I'd use the 1.5 and not worry.

Mart

quote:

Over the next month or so I'll look for it, and if I can find it, I'll let you know and give it to you for the postage. It deserves to be on a rifle working its butt off out in the woods.

Doublegun
Share some pics if you get a chance,Im a nut over pre 64=s and especially the Prewars

Alberta

your generosity is showing again

I am sure this gent will use it to keep a classic in propper dress, and if it were me Id load and shoot nothing but 220 grain bullets or heavier in the old work horse.

On large critters it will still be a 300 yard rifle.

Hell If I can still hit Gophers @ 150 yards with a 4x a 1.5 is not a handicap on deer and such at 300 yards


Enjoy your classic Doublegun


Cal30

IMO, one of the best period scopes for old M70s are Bausch & Lomb Balvars with Kuharsky mounts. Not only do they look appropriate but optics wise they are very clear & bright. Also very light weight.

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:
IMO, one of the best period scopes for old M70s are Bausch & Lomb Balvars with Kuharsky mounts. Not only do they look appropriate but optics wise they are very clear & bright. Also very light weight.

Do you mean Baltar?

Either the Baltur, Balfor or Balvar. All require exterior adjustment mounts, like the Kuharsky.

The Kuharsky mount places the scope rather high above the receiver. That gets back into the "bulk" problem from the beginning.

I have a 4x Leupold Mountaineer that I have put back for when the right period rifle comes along.

quote:

Originally posted by mart:
I like the Weaver K1.5x, I have three of them. I love the old Weavers, Lymans and Leupolds. I have lost track of how many Leupold 3x's I have but it is a bunch. The clarity of all three of my K1.5s is excellent and they seem to be exceptionally tough, being on my heavier recoiling rifles with no problems to date. However, none of my 1.5s have the post and cross hair, my favorite reticle for low power scopes. I'd use the 1.5 and not worry.

Mart

They ARE exceptionally tough. I think I've posted here before that for at least a couple of years after moving here from Canada, I used to buy all the inexpensive used ones I could find and ship them to friends who hunted the Canadian bush, often a couple of hundred miles or more from the nearest road of any kind. They wanted and appreciated tough, and they loved those Weavers.

Come to think of it, another REALLY good scope from the 50s which would have plenty of power for almost anything the .300 would be doing is the Weaver K-3. Same small diameter objective lens as the K1.5, but double the magnification.

And the K-3s came with all sorts of reticules, from post, to post and crosshair, to crosshair, extra fine (almost invisible) crosshair with dot, medium-heavy crosshair with dot, and the "Dual-X-type" of crosshair.

Plus reticules are easy to replace at home in any of those K-series scopes. Nitrogen isn't easy to replace, but most of those were not filled with nitrogen, they were nitrogen-purged, a whole 'nother thing.

quote:

Originally posted by fla3006:
Either the Baltur, Balfor or Balvar. All require exterior adjustment mounts, like the Kuharsky.

The Kuharsky was a less expensive copy of the Bausch and Lomb mount. The three most popular adjustable mounts of the '50s seem to have been the B&L, the Kuharsky, and the Stiths. But Leupold, Redfield, and others, made adjustable mounts for quite a while for hunting scopes which did not have internal adjustments. Once internal adjustments started coming on all sorts of scopes, the market dropped for adjustable mounts to the point where one-by-one they finally disappeared.

(For a while, there was an adjustable mount which was really, really popular in the '30s and very early '40s which was made in San Francisco. Jack O'Connor loved them in the '30s but, dang it, I can't recall their name right this instant.)_

I am starting to get fired-up. Loaded some 220-gr Interlocks and some 220-gr Partitions over 59.5 gr. of 4350. They make my 180-gr. loads look like varmint ammo.

Yeah

There is something sexy looking about a Hornady 220 grain Round nose bullet.


Cal30

I load 220s in my 06 scout rifle for piggies and a couple of bears. They work real well.

The couple of coyotes,porkupines I wacked with them didn't seem to mind.

The original Weavers hold up very well against anything produced today. I've had a 1.5 x 4.5 on my 375 H&H for 30 years. A number of K models from 1.5 to 6x on a bunch more rifles. They never seem to break or leak. A blued steel scope tube looks best on any old or classic bolt gun. I've found that I went through a period where I over scoped just about everything I owned because of the "what if" mentality of having 3.5 to 10x or 4.5 to 14 available for a situation I've never found mysef in except on the range.

You are on the right track with a K 1.5 you might end up with a nice K4 and never look back. Feel free to send the 1.5 my way if you get tired of it. It would go great on my M70 458 to replace my receiver sight to help my old eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
I load 220s in my 06 scout rifle for piggies and a couple of bears. They work real well.

The couple of coyotes,porkupines I wacked with them didn't seem to mind.

That's my next project. I love the idea of the 220 gr 06, although there is just something sexy about the long case of a 300 HH.