Low Powered Scopes 1x -2x are very handy

[Bret4207]

Cooper may have been a great guy but I still think the scout rifle is tacticool. Had it been proposed for a black rifle would people feel different?

Yeah, but his "Scout Rifle", at least as I recall it, was in opposition to the rush to AR's and other semi's. The only real modification was the detachable mag. You also had an EER scope mounted forward, back up irons, and a sling. The mag was the big difference, otherwise it was a 03-A3 or better, a SMLE Jungle Carbine with the scope. That's not really "tacti-cool" is it? To me the term means rail mounted everything, with all sorts of useless but exotic add on's on an AR/AK/HK used by people who go to the range and wander around in "Condition 2" at all waking moments, and try to train themselves to sleep with their eyes open! IMO the Scout Rifle is just a common sense truck/tractor/farm/hunting rifle that happens to work very well as an ad hoc SD rifle. Yeah, you can glitz it up with camo paint and lights and flame throwers, but the basic original idea probably appealed more to older, more conservative minded guys that didn't spend a lot of time selecting their wardrobe out a Galls catalog, wearing black masks and knee/elbow pads 24/7 or dreaming about zip lining out of black helicopters to rescue a fair maiden.

I dunno, maybe anything with a semi military flavor has a certain amount of "tactical coolness" to it. Where you draw the line is a personal thing.

 

[Petrol & Powder]

Cooper envisoned the Scout Rifle concept long before there were commerically produced examples.
It appears the concept was well defined by 1983:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Throwback Thursday: The Scout Rifle

Every Thursday we'll share an article from the American Rifleman archives. In this week's article taken from September 1985, we revisit Jeff Cooper's original vision for this do-it-all utility gun.

www.americanrifleman.org

I don't think it was opposition to the AR platforms (at least not in those days) but it certainly may have developed into that opposition later on.

It IS a valid concept and I do think Bret4207 hits the nail on the head when he writes, "IMO the Scout Rifle is just a common sense truck/tractor/farm/hunting rifle that happens to work very well as an ad hoc SD rifle. "
Perhaps that is a "Scout Rifle" in its simpliest terms.

I think once you add a detachable magazine, the usefulness of the forward mounted scope becomes a bit questionable, but the other criteria remain very valid:
less than 1 meter long, no more than about 3 kilograms total weight, back-up iron sights, low power heavy duty scope, decent accuracy, useful cartridge, a dependable repeating action, useful sling and chambered in a common cartridge that is useful out to about 400 meters on game and or human targets if needed. (308 , 7x57 or 7mm-08 are commonly cited)

 

[RicinYakima]

Cooper envisoned the Scout Rifle concept long before there were commerically produced examples.
It appears the concept was well defined by 1983:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Throwback Thursday: The Scout Rifle

Every Thursday we'll share an article from the American Rifleman archives. In this week's article taken from September 1985, we revisit Jeff Cooper's original vision for this do-it-all utility gun.

www.americanrifleman.org

I don't think it was opposition to the AR platforms (at least not in those days) but it certainly may have developed into that opposition later on.

It IS a valid concept and I do think Bret4207 hits the nail on the head when he writes, "IMO the Scout Rifle is just a common sense truck/tractor/farm/hunting rifle that happens to work very well as an ad hoc SD rifle. "
Perhaps that is a "Scout Rifle" in its simpliest terms.

I think once you add a detachable magazine, the usefulness of the forward mounted scope becomes a bit questionable, but the other criteria remain very valid:
less than 1 meter long, no more than about 3 kilograms total weight, back-up iron sights, low power heavy duty scope, decent accuracy, useful cartridge, a dependable repeating action, useful sling and chambered in a common cartridge that is useful out to about 400 meters on game and or human targets if needed. (308 , 7x57 or 7mm-08 are commonly cited)

I not only remembered that article but the ones written for Guns and Ammo in the late 1960's. Having taken a few walks in the jungle, I admit I preferred the M16 or the Thompson SMG. However I worked for 22 years with a guy who was a Scout with the 1st Recon, USMC, who thought this concept was very good. Their job was not firefights, but retire and call in Arty or Air. The worse thing about the M14 was weight and the best was the ability to penetrate wood and dirt if you walked into a bunkered area. He thought a scope would be very useable picking off trackers while retiring.

 

[Bret4207]

In the mid 80's the big thing was Mini-14s, HK's, Uzi's, stuff like that. I recall Cooper deriding them as much because of the cartridges as the spray and pray attitude of many of the shooters. I suppose it was in essence the difference between "shooters" and "riflemen", if you follow my drift. I personally have owned only a couple semi rifles outside of 22LR's- an abysmally, hopelessly inaccurate Mini 14 bought for Rez duty, (they had 30 and 50 cal machine guns, I had a 357 and a strong desire to go home at the end of the day!) and an SKS, the one that has the single shot mechanism, which turned out to be a fun and surprisingly accurate rifle, albeit clunky and not very graceful. Wish I'd bought cases of ammo back when it was cheap. And there are a couple 30 M1 Carbines here too that I've yet to even shoot, again, wishing I'd bought surplus ammo. My interests just don't flow towards chasing brass, so maybe that's why the Scout Rifle idea appeals to me. But when you look at a Scout Rifle, with the exception of the mag and scope, you have an M38 Swede, an FR7/8, a Jungle Carbine, a Krag Carbine, a Finnish MN, Steyr 95 and probably a buncha other effective bolt guns, most that can use stripper clips too. Outside of the mag, scope and action, it's a M94/336/Savage 99. That's how I see it anyway. Relatively light, decent calibered, not too long and not a semi-auto. IOW- a handy rifle.

 

[Jeff H]

.....I worked for 22 years with a guy who was a Scout with the 1st Recon, USMC, who thought this concept was very good......

Worthy, valid concept in the "right" hands. "Tacticool" in the "wrong" hands.

I THINK the epithet "tacticool" focuses on the idea of unnecessary stuff, the sole purpose of which is IMAGE.

That leaves me thinking that whether something is or is not "tacticool" is based primarily on WHY someone has it - to look cool, or because they're a real scout...


The July, 1966 installment of Ken Waters' Pet Loads opens with a photo of a fella with a Winchester lever-action rifle sporting a forward-mounted, (presumably) low-powered scope on it. That article was on the 30/30.

This thread induced me to go through my scopes and dial all the power-rings to each extreme, which I do a few times a year, just to keep them from "freezing up." Maybe superstitious, but I'm not gambling on the "twice-burned" concept.

But to the point, I noted that the biggest scope I have left is ONE Leupold Vari-X II in 3-9 left. More than I need, but its been paid for a long time and is s great scope. I'd only consider letting it go toward a lower-powered version of the same. Next down is a 2-7 of the same brand/model/vintage, a Redfield 2-7 of about the same vintage as the Leupolds, a B&L Balvar 1.5-6, a couple 1-3s, a fixed-six.

In all honesty, if I had FIVE of those B&L Balvar 1.5-6s, I'd have one of those on everything. 6x might be a bit of a high high for some, but the 1.5 would be an ideal low for all.

 

[JustJim]

But to the point, I noted that the biggest scope I have left is ONE Leupold Vari-X II in 3-9 left. More than I need, but its been paid for a long time and is s great scope. I'd only consider letting it go toward a lower-powered version of the same. Next down is a 2-7 of the same brand/model/vintage, a Redfield 2-7 of about the same vintage as the Leupolds, a B&L Balvar 1.5-6, a couple 1-3s, a fixed-six.

Tell me about this one, if you would please. I ran across mention of it a couple days ago and am giving some contemplation to installing one on my 30-06. Never been a big Leupold fan: I think I've owned one (M8-4x) that had to make a couple trips to the factory for repairs so I replaced it with a 3x El Paso Wever that lasted til I traded that rifle off. (Seems a 7# 375 H&H is a bit hard on scopes; who knew?)

 

[Bret4207]

I'm not Jeff, but my sole Leupold is a Vari X II (IIRC) 2-7X. It sits on a Ruger Ultra Light 250-3000 in an early B+C stock, again IIRC. It's about perfect for that rifle in my area IMO. It stays on 2x unless there is a specific need to dial it up a bit, like a coyotes head sticking just above the grass or something. Great in early morning, late afternoon as far as light gathering. As far as the brand itself, I've only had the one, but it is nicer than most of my other scopes, and it's price reflected that. I'm a steel tube El Paso Weaver kinda guy mostly, but this is a nice scope.

 

[MW65]

My leupolds are a fixed 4x and a 6x... both older models and are on my 'go to' hunting rifles.... a 4x Redfield "wide view " is on my other 'go to'... my weavers are great scopes, but with my prescription glasses, I have some issues trying to get them to focus 'just right' :-/ something I don't have issues with on my other 'go to's... getting older ain't fun!

 

[JustJim]

I'm not Jeff, but my sole Leupold is a Vari X II (IIRC) 2-7X. It sits on a Ruger Ultra Light 250-3000 in an early B+C stock, again IIRC. It's about perfect for that rifle in my area IMO. It stays on 2x unless there is a specific need to dial it up a bit, like a coyotes head sticking just above the grass or something. Great in early morning, late afternoon as far as light gathering. As far as the brand itself, I've only had the one, but it is nicer than most of my other scopes, and it's price reflected that. I'm a steel tube El Paso Weaver kinda guy mostly, but this is a nice scope.

Thanks. I have a similar role in mind (utility/ready rifle). The rifle (30-06) currently wears a very nice 6x Weaver, and shoots very nicely. . . but is a bit slow for close shots. The 2-7x sounds like the range would be good for my use. How is it around dawn/twilight?

 

[Bret4207]

Well, to my mind it's fine. I have no experience with the scopes designed for extra "light gathering" as the ad's read, so I compare it to standard scopes like my Weavers, Redfields, etc, and it's seems just about the same, maybe a little better, but some of my Weavers are from the 50's. I don't know if it has any special attributes in that area.

 

[Edward R Southgate]

I use the steel tube Weaver and Lyman's in the 2.5-3x range on about 75% of the rifles I hunt with locally. Most shots being under 100 yards I can't really see a need for anything much stronger.

 

[Jeff H]

Tell me about this one, if you would please. I ran across mention of it a couple days ago and am giving some contemplation to installing one on my 30-06. Never been a big Leupold fan: I think I've owned one (M8-4x) that had to make a couple trips to the factory for repairs so I replaced it with a 3x El Paso Wever that lasted til I traded that rifle off. (Seems a 7# 375 H&H is a bit hard on scopes; who knew?)

Sorry for the late reply, but Bret-not-Jeff pretty much nailed it.

The older Vari-X IIs are pretty slim, no gawky protuberances, no unnecessary knobs, nodules or appendages - just sleek and slender, no nonsense scopes with uncluttered reticles. The 2-7 is my favorite of my few Leupolds. I've never needed more than 6X or 7X on the high end and 1.5X to 2X on the low end is much better than 3X for me. It's getting difficult to find a NEW scope that's not rife with gadgets and bulk I don't personally need, or that don't have higher power ratings than I need. The older Leupold Vari-X IIs were/are a good value and just slim, basic scopes.

Is it the best scope out there? I don't know, but probably not, but they are a lot better than a lot of them and a solid value because they do what they are supposed to do and are reliable. None of mine were over $200, so I'm getting a lot of JUST SCOPE for the money. I don't need or want a huge objective, huge occular or tall turret caps, computators, calculators, compensators, comparators, buletooth or overdrive.

 

[RicinYakima]

The Lyman Alaskan 2 1/4 power, with five inches of eye relief was good enough for Jack O'Conner shooting sheep at 350 yards is probably good enough for me. It was good enough for me on my first 338 WM, and the guy I sold it to in Alaska as never complained after 45 years.

 

[hporter]

The last two low powered scopes that I bought were the Weaver 1x3 and the Leupold 1.5x4 and I love them both. I just looked and the Leupold still seems to be available, but I do not think the Weaver is.

I would be interested in hearing from folks about which ones are still available new, that they would personally recommend? When I browse websites I see a lot of tactical this and that for lower powered scopes with features that I would probably never use nor value.

I like the idea of Ric's Lyman Alaskan 2-1/4 power that he mentions in the thread above. I have a Savage 23 in 32-20 that came with scope rings that would be neat to have a classic scope like that installed.

But looking through eBay for classic Weaver scopes feels like walking through a field full of land mines. The prices are going up on them, but it is hard to judge condition and a lot of sellers don't sound like they know much about what they are selling.

So if you know of decent quality currently available scopes at a reasonable price, I would love to hear about them. Christmas is coming and the wife always needs ideas!

 

[Jeff H]

The last two low powered scopes that I bought were the Weaver 1x3 and the Leupold 1.5x4 and I love them both. I just looked and the Leupold still seems to be available, but I do not think the Weaver is....

I have two of the Weaver V3 Classic 1-3x20s, made in Japan and without all the gimmicky features. I snagged one a few years ago and was very happy with it and decided to buy another. Glad I looked when I did, because they'd been discontinued and were on clearance. The price on the first was decent, but the second was a steal. No idea what the have now, but I think they are made in the Philippines, not Japan.

The last low-powered variable Leupold in my price range was a 1.5-4x20 VX Freedom and I was very disappointed in that scope. It had gargantuan turret caps, a chalk-board finish, there was NO tactile or audible definition in the "clicks" when turning a dial. The POI would not shift proportionally to the number of "clicks" on either axis - until AFTER a shot or two and then it would jump. Terrible disappointment from any maker, let alone Leupold. The next step up for a low-powered variable was a big jump in price.

 

[CWLONGSHOT]

All the early Leupolds where friction. IINM ALL previous to VXIII. Maybe including (I dont remember)
They have been solid as a rock. Also early Weavers and Redfields was too.

I have a couple Leupold in the Freedom Line too. (Bottom line Leupold no?) As I have seen some older aTributes stay with the bottom line stuff.

I have a 1-5 VXIII but a few 1-4 VXII scopes a d they hvae been bullet Proof.

CW

 

[Jeff H]

.....But looking through eBay for classic Weaver scopes feels like walking through a field full of land mines. The prices are going up on them, but it is hard to judge condition and a lot of sellers don't sound like they know much about what they are selling....

The last steel-tube Lyman I bought off eBay looked new, but had finger prints on the INSIDE of the lenses and was murky to look through. Someone had had it apart and did something to it and put it back together, so I had to assume it wasn't purged or sealed and I returned it.

Definitely couldn't see that on the photos posted, but the guy was decent about it. Said he knew nothing about them and was selling his father's possessions. I never looked to see if it was relisted.

 

[Jeff H]

All the early Leupolds where friction. IINM ALL previous to VXIII. Maybe including (I dont remember)
They have been solid as a rock. Also early Weavers and Redfields was too.

I have a couple Leupold in the Freedom Line too. (Bottom line Leupold no?) As I have seen some older aTributes stay with the bottom line stuff.

I have a 1-5 VXIII but a few 1-4 VXII scopes a d they hvae been bullet Proof.

CW

Yes, the VX Freedom is the bottom of the Leupold line. Some of my older Leupolds are friction, but the Freedom felt like it was supposed to have detents, but they were mushy, like you could almost feel it and you could work the dial back and forth a little quite loosley, like it was in between two mushy detents. Not responding to adjustments until after a few shots are fired was the deciding factor on my judgement.

The only thing that worries me about my older Leupolds and Redfield is if I have to send it in - will they fix it or send me current stuff back? I'm very pleased with my Vari-X IIs and would not want to loose one.

 

[MW65]

...
The only thing that worries me about my older Leupolds and Redfield is if I have to send it in - will they fix it or send me current stuff back? I'm very pleased with my Vari-X IIs and would not want to loose one.

Leupold will typically service or replace older models... I have a couple m8's, which they serviced within the past couple of years via previous owners

 

[Winelover]

Leupold, like other manufactures have an entry line to satisfy that end of the market. Consequently, are built to shave costs. Wouldn't be surprised if the Freedom line is built overseas. With any type of optic, you get what you pay for. If you peruse a catalog, like Natchez, you will quickly see the price difference between Leupold's lines.

Everyone of the Leupold's, I own are Gold Ring Mark III's. I can't find fault with any of them. However, they cost about the same as the rifle did, that they are mounted on.

My serious business optics are Trijicon's. Good enough for the military, good enough for me.

Buy once, cry once.