I can't say about the 2.5 or 3 but I have a K4 that has smaller diameter lenses (28mm) then my weaver 4X (30 or 32mm)both fixed 4 power w/fine cross hairs. I like them and had them mounted on my rimfires but they weren't focused for close 25 yard range so I swapped them out. I've got them both along with a Banner 4X pm me if you want one. Both weavers are fine cross hairs, very fine, I think the banner is thicker.

 

Iirc, the K2.5 / K3 were straight tube objectives, meaning no scope objective bell. They are a bit heavy, and the tubes are steel (if we are talking El Paso vintage, anyway). I like these low powered scopes a lot, but they have been around a looong time - the older 60's vintage scopes may be a bit dimmer, and parallax sensitive then we are used to nowadays.

My Dad had a K2.5 on his Winchester 30-30 for many years - its now on my brother's 10/22. I think for rimfires, the low power is a real blessing for hunters / plinkers, as the sight picture through them settles down very quickly. You are confident of your shot - and the results generally prove them to be the case.

One recent development I read here - the repair facility for them may be retiring, so servicing one may become problematic.

I hope this helps.

 

I have several and find them to be neat little scopes, perfectly useful. I agree with your "period correct" comment; I further believe that the 20mm objective (straight tube) K2.5 and K3 are the best LOOKING optic you can have on a lever or small bolt gun. I have two mint 50's vintage K2.5's on my two 1947 vintage BRNO #1's.

 

Yeah, thats the stuff . . .

. . . really belongs up there. :bthumb:

 

Anyone know how to date these old Weaver 2.5X, 3X, and K4 scopes, or for that matter any El Paso Weaver. OldSwede, you said yours was a 1950s scope. Did you know that by the serial or model number, or maybe a copyrighted owners manual or old Weaver ad?

 

Mine were ANIB, with all the papers. It was like finding gold....

 

I've used and collected Weavers for about 40 years.Most of the early scopes (mid 1950s and older) are pretty poor optically as they had gum resin cemented lenses that tend to haze over and or crackle over time.

The scope that Oldswede has on the BRNO mod 1 above is a 1970's - 1980's Weaver.

How do I know? Well, starting in 1973 when weaver came out with their all steel scopes they "sharpened" the edges on the scope bells where it goes from straight to the taper. Earlier Weavers all had a more rounded transition in that area.The post 1973 Weavers are marked -1 after the model number on the tube.

Judging from the pics, the scope on "Oldswede's" rifle has aluminum turrets, and lenses cells(end caps). That would make it a late 1970s-1980s Steel Lite II scope with Micro track adjustments..

As far as true "period correct " scopes, Don Fenton.. When was your Marlin m39 made???

 

I've used and collected Weavers for about 40 years.Most of the early scopes (mid 1950s and older) are pretty poor optically as they had gum resin cemented lenses that tend to haze over and or crackle over time.

The scope that Oldswede has on the BRNO mod 1 above is a 1970's - 1980's Weaver.

How do I know? Well, starting in 1973 when weaver came out with their all steel scopes they "sharpened" the edges on the scope bells where it goes from straight to the taper. Earlier Weavers all had a more rounded transition in that area.The post 1973 Weavers are marked -1 after the model number on the tube.

Judging from the pics, the scope on "Oldswede's" rifle has aluminum turrets, and lenses cells(end caps). That would make it a late 1970s-1980s Steel Lite II scope with Micro track adjustments..

As far as true "period correct " scopes, Don Fenton.. When was your Marlin m39 made???

Thank you, sir; I bow to your superior knowledge on the subject. Guess I got "snookered" when I bought the scopes as far as vintage was concerned. Guess I won't lose any sleep at night over it; they are nice and clear and "look"
period.

That's why I love this forum! I learn something every day!

OS

 

Thanks ClassicOne - I always dated them by thinking (apparently incorrectly) that the extremely glossy finished models were the 80's vintage Trac II. And that the trademark for the El Paso were the more 'fuzzy' finished steel tubed, with covers that were knurled or had circular ring around it. I had never noticed the profile of bell but agree - the older bells had a radiused (eased) transition, rather than the sharp defined line.

 

Hmmm it seems that tere must have been a swop over period where scopes off the production lin at El Paso got some of the features of both types. You see I have two Steel Lite 11 scopes a K3-W which does not have the "1" after the model number but has the alloy caps. The K1.5-1 also has the alloy caps but the cap profiles are slightly different the K1.5-1 has a flat at the bottom on the bevel whilst the K3W has the knurled angle right down to the bottom.

I brought both new in there boxes but don't recall any paperwork with them .

 

Swede.

Sir, IMHO, you did not get snookered at all as long as you did not buy the Weaver in the pics for the price of a new Leupold or something..

Those late 1970s-early 1908s Weavers, all things considered ,may be THE BEST of all the El Paso scopes. The sad thing, is if you put a "period correct" mid 194Os Weaver K series 1" scope on the gun ,you would not be too happy with it optically. Mecahnically and aesthetically- yes- optically- no.

Even in pristine condition, freshly cleaned, they are simply not as good as scopes made 20-30 years later in terms of clarity. Swede, if you want to be CLOSE to period correct- late 1950s early 1960s, get a hold of a K3-60 or 60B scope. They have the aluminum lense cells(end caps) and turrets. They are a very good scope optically and are the best of the early (pre 1973) Weavers since they have no plastic in them like the mid to late 1960s Weavers did.....:bthumb:

 

They are a very good scope optically and are the best of the early (pre 1973) Weavers since they have no plastic in them like the mid to late 1960s Weavers did.....:bthumb:

By plastic, do you mean plastic lens?

 

ClassicOne, thanks for the great info. I just bought a K3-1 which should go nicely on my 1980 - 39M, or maybe on my 1983 - 1894M (.22WMR)?
What was the last model year for the K2.5 straight tube (no objective bell)?

Thanks again everyone,
Don

 

MGT,

By 1965 Weaver made some bad choices with regards to plastics. They used it fist of all, in their new "C" series of 3/4" tubed rimfire scopes. The eyepeice and objective bells were plastic as well as the turrets, covers and even some lenses inside..On a cheap rimfire scope, that's one thing.The problem is, Weaver starter using plastic for the lense cell holders(end caps) on their centerfire "K" series scopes starting in 1965 with the K-"C" scopes.

BAD MOVE.

From 1965 to 1972 , Weaver made several "marks" of K series scopes the were marked K4-C E F G etc as time went on. Optically, those late 1960s Weavers were fine- the problem was in cold weather the lense cells had a tendency to chip and or crack which compromised the fog proofing.

Failures due to the plastic parts gave Weaver the permanent stigma of merely being a "cheap" scope when compared to the by then "upscale" brands of Redfield and Leupold.

Weaver went to ALL steel construction by 1973, but by then, the damage was done...

 

MGT,

By 1965 Weaver made some bad choices with regards to plastics. They used it fist of all, in their new "C" series of 3/4" tubed rimfire scopes. The eyepeice and objective bells were plastic as well as the turrets, covers and even some lenses inside..On a cheap rimfire scope, that's one thing.The problem is, Weaver starter using plastic for the lense cell holders(end caps) on their centerfire "K" series scopes starting in 1965 with the K-"C" scopes.

BAD MOVE.

From 1965 to 1972 , Weaver made several "marks" of K series scopes the were marked K4-C E F G etc as time went on. Optically, those late 1960s Weavers were fine- the problem was in cold weather the lense cells had a tendency to chip and or crack which compromised the fog proofing.

Failures due to the plastic parts gave Weaver the permanent stigma of merely being a "cheap" scope when compared to the by then "upscale" brands of Redfield and Leupold.

Weaver went to ALL steel construction by 1973, but by then, the damage was done...

Did Weaver ever use plastics lens (internal or extrenal) for the K series scopes? If so, what range of years.

Did Weaver ever use plastic lens holders for the "internal" erector optics for the K -series? If so, for what years?

Did Weaver ever use plastic erector tubes for K seres? If so, for what years?

Also, you sometimes use the word "lens cell" but then say "lens caps". Please accurately describe what you mean but "lens cell" and diffference between "lens cap" so that there can be no confusion. For all I know, your lens cap is just a scope dust cover!

Here is what I think your trying to say. For the K series scope, the objective lens is glass. It rides inside a metal lens carrier (lens cell). The lens carrier screws inside the front metal bellow tube, and can be adjusted to change the focus/parallax of the scope to 100 yards for example. The lens carrier has a retainer ring (lens cap, dew cap, whatever) that screws onto front of lens carrier. This retainer ring (lens cap, dew cap, whatever) does several things, it provides a lock so that the lens carrier does not loosen and the o-ring seals are maintained, it provides a small amount of protection space to minimize the lens hitting anything, it can provide a minimal amount of flare reduction from external light, and it provides an outer surface for the dust covers to attach to. This retainer ring (lens cap, dew cap, whatever) is made of plastic on some 60s and 70s K series scopes, and they sometimes crack in field use. Once the retainer ring (lens cap, dew cap, whatever) is broken, the lens carrier is exposed, and can loosen. Furthermore, the o-rings might also be exposed, or at the very least, subject to exposure if the lens carrier is accidently loosened, or the elements (water and dirt) start to seep into the lens carrier threads and eventually penetrate the o-ring seals. I am making some assumptions on how the lens carrier attaches to a Weaver, as well as o-ring location, and there is at least one other way they can attach, that eliminates the outer retainer ring and replaces it with an inner retainer ring.

Is everybody confused now?

Thanks for info.

 

Weaver Classics

ClassicOne;

I have been long searching for someone with collectors knowledge and interest in older Weavers. What do you know about the Weaver Classics made from 1970-1972? These were aluminum tube scopes that were more expensive at the time than comparable Leupolds. As I recall, they were available as Classic 300(3X), 400(4X), 600(6X), V700(2X7) and V900(3X9).

These scopes are light in weight and the optics seem good. I've been tempted to buy them when I've seen them. Do you have any experience with these? Comments?

 

The "first" Weaver Classics were made from 1970-72. I say "first" as later Weaver (Blount) came out with the current Japanese made "Classic" series..

Anyway, the 1970s Classics were an attempt to run with Redfield and Leupold.

The management at Weaver was so ignorant of WHY they had garnered a reputation of unreliability (the plastic lens cells on their center fire scopes) that they did an incredibly STUPID thing.

After spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to develop the tooling to make beautifully anodized SPUN aluminum tubes( as their steel ones were made) and THEN developing the Assembly line to make them.. they STILL used the PLASTIC lens cells (end caps) on a their new High dollar babies!!

Simply incredible..and yet it happened.

Granted, the lense cell material used on the classics seems to be a bit softer and less brittle (more like a nylon type polymer), it STILL was plastic...

Optically the 1970s Classic scopes are OK- comparable to any 1970s era Weaver... I just would not use one on a big game rifle I'd have to depend on due to the lack of durability of the plastic parts...

 

Here is my vintage Weaver mounted on a Marlin 62 in 256 Win. Mag. It is a model KV in 2 3/4 x 5 power with crosshair reticle. As can be seen, the variable adjustment is on the turret block under the cap (the other two caps are missing). The scope is still pretty clear. The only thing that is somewhat of a distraction is that the reticle is not permantly centered, and when sighted in on this rifle the crosshair is off-center somewhat to the "southeast". I suspect this is a 40's to early 50's vintage...anyone know ?
Rog

 

Roger,

Yes, I was referring to the "end caps" which are also the lens cell holders on the Weaver scopes at each end.
They would crack and compromise the scopes seals and thus they would fog over time.

The tubes on the Weaver scopes are relatively thin drawn steel. The tube itself does not give much support to the plastic end caps on impact - thus the problems..

About the only model of 1" tubed Weaver scopes that MAY have had other plastic parts in them (including the lenses) are the "Marksman" series 1" scopes sold to discount chains in the 60's 70's and 80's.

As to your KV model on the Marlin, It was made from 1953 to 1959.

 

Roger,

Yes, I was referring to the "end caps" which are also the lens cell holders on the Weaver scopes at each end.

I finally understand what you are saying. The design is bad not only because of the use of plastic, but that this "end cap" IS THE LENS CARRIER. Once this lens cap is unscrewed, the lens comes out too. These old Weaver lens carriers are partially exposed to outside world and their is no protection. Every new modern scope I that seen (new Asian Weavers include) has put the lens carrier (aka lens holder) safely inside the tube, where the outer metal from the bellows protects it from "bruises".

 

Roger,

I know nothing about your scope, but that sure is a beautiful rifle!

regards,
smokey262

 

MY k-3 has 60c on it. Don't know when it was made. Not used it in years. Though about mounting it on a 39-a. Also have a old K-10 on a Rem 222. The one with steel parallax adjustments. It was on a rifle that I bought used in 75 or 76.

 

Terrific information!! Thanks, fellers!! I have been trying to kinda date Weavers for years just by gleaning a little information here and there!! I didn't know anything about the plastic what-evers in the scope tubes!

I had always kind of thought that the Weaver 60 series was the first generation of permanently centered reticles that came out in 1956. Or was THAT the 60B? By 1960 I thought Weaver came out with the 60C. Is this correct? Then Weaver had, like ClassicOne said---the B, and the A and the F and all of "those" which I just had to guess were the late sixties stuff.

I have only seen the early seventies Classics in printed ads--I have never had my hands on one. I have seen several of them, however, on eBay in the past year. I never knew why they quit making them---I just assumed they had not sold well as they cost 30% more than the regular line....

I have a K6-1 ( for lack of a better term I call them "dash One" in my head...) and I have a K4-1 Micro Trac. ClassicOne has pinpointed the "dash one" as 1973 and up ( I didn't know for sure---I knew it was around by 1974 because of some old Shooter's Bibles....).

I feel that the Micro-Trac ( which began being so marked in 1978 according to Nick Stroebel..) is Brighter than the previous generation of plain old "dash one".....does anybody else think so?? Anyway, I like the micro trac adjustments.....

I like the old Weaver scopes.....I realize that they are certainly not state-of-the-art with superior coatings, etc. that we can get nowadays brand new. I have often been tempted to buy one of the old C3 series ( and the like) on eBay because I like the funny little turret caps (!) but now I know that PLASTIC lurks in there!! Shouldn't be too dangerous for a sunny- day- 22 rifle, I guess!

I have also never touched the Steel-Lite II models. How much lighter are they? What do you know about them, fellas??

Anyway thanks, for all the info!! --Ed

 

Ed,

The K60-C models were introduced in 1965 and were the FIRST K models to my knowledge to have the plastic lens holders/end caps front and rear.

Folks have to put this manufacturing decision in perspective.
In the early 1960s Plastics were thought of as a "wonder material"..

The reliable little Remington Nylon 66 had been out since 1959 and we were sending men to the moon by depending on"space age" plastics.

I just think that Weaver should have thought thought the nicks and bumps their Big Game scopes could receive and stuck with machined aluminum for those parts..

The reason why they did not was to keep MFG costs down any way they could. By the mid 1960s Weaver was the largest rifle scope maker in the world.They had to keep the price of their scopes down to maintain market share.Remember that for TWENTY YEARS the Weaver K-4 scope stayed at $45 retail

They literally chose quality over quality.They just went a little too far...

 

oh....that is too bad...I liked the old Weavers. I have absolutely no experience with the NEW WEAVERs ( now they have been around for Twenty years already!!) Some folks say they are a good scope and a teriffic bargain. I like the way they look ( the K and the V series..) they still LOOK like a scope should look with a normal ocular and an excellent shape.

So it is the ring that holds the lenses in place on either end of the scope that you are talking about....I see. So if we avoid those models, we are back to having a decent scope by 1973? Good.

I also thought maybe the weight of those steel tubes may have cost them some business towards the end. I don't know. Those old V9-1 were 22 oz.!!!

I am a fan of the old scopes ( Redfields and what-have-you ) but I realize that they are nowhere near as bright and magnificent as the "average" scope of today. That is a shame. I really go crazy when I see those beautiful specimens on sale on eBay.....some of them are quite cheap! I bought my EXCELLENT K6-1 last year for $49.99 plus shipping!! I rubbed some Renaissance Wax on it and it is just beautiful!! HA! Works fine--although I don't find it as bright at dusk as my K4 Micro Trac--which is a LOT BRIGHTER than a contemporary Leupold 4X (M8) that I had. I compared them side by side!

I preferred the Weaver!! The magnification was actually BIGGER....the catalog for 1975 claims 4.1 X as actual magnification...and it was noticibly LARGER than the Leupold 4X----

The field of view was wider ( in a Round Weaver!) than the Leupold!
The duplex was Bolder!
It had Micro-Trac clicks instead of slidy friction adjustments.
and the blue job matched my rifle better....HA!

The Leupold WAS lighter!! The Leupold probably had better glass but I couldn't tell--except that the Weaver had a definite "corona" of unpolished glass around the perimeter of the view. No big deal. I think those old Weaver K4-1 Micro-Tracs are a great scope to hunt with....and a real bargain on eBay!!!

If I had a lot of money I would stock up on a closet full of them for rainy days!!