Rifle Scopes

[Igiveup]

Does anyone make a 4x or other fixed power rifle scope now days? I just don
't see any advertised, something like the old Weaver K4 scopes. Everything seems to be variable power.

 

[dusty3030]

Leupold still has a few.

FX-3 6x42mm Scopes | Leupold

FX-II Ultralight 2.5x20mm Scopes | Leupold

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Tough market for a fixed power 2.5 scope when for the same price you can get a 1.4x4. I bemoan the passing of ther fixed powers as I really liked the 2x but it makes no sense whatsoever buying one (unless you can find one used) when you can get a 1.5x4 for the same price and it is probably sitting on the shelf and won't have to be special ordered.

 

[Charlie Foxtrott]

IOR Valdada makes a 4X.

I have IOR scopes on some of my rifles. And I have been pretty happy with them.

 

[rockquarry]

I still have and use three or four old Weaver K4 4Xs (one may be a 3X). Opinions will vary on this, but, for years, I've found a fixed 6X to be just as useful as a 4X up close but more suitable for game shooting at longer ranges than I would feel comfortable using a 4X at.

Leupold was making a fixed 4X scope as well as two versions of a 6X fixed (6x36 and 6x42). I don't know whether these are all still available, but I have several of both 6x36 and 6x42 that have worked well.

 

[ancient-one]

Keep watching eBay.

 

[bushmaster1313]

There are used fixed scopes on eBay going back 60 or more years

But new glass at modest prices is better than old glass that was very expensive in its time

Leupold did reintroduce the FX models a few ears back but I do not think they were big sellers. The oldie but goodie Leupolds were called M8's

I have two older fixed scopes on my two pre-64 Winchesters Model 70s:

Weaver K2.5 on a .257 Roberts

Leupold 4X Mountaineer on a .270:

The old fixed scopes give a great look to a classic rifle. But if you want to hit where you aim go for newer glass.

 

[dave1918a2]

I used to use weaver 4X on all My hunting rifles. As they got dropped or otherwise broke I replaced them with Leupold 2.5 X 8 variables. Never looked back

 

[BB57]

A couple thoughts...

1) Way back in the day the standard scope for hunting east of the Mississippi was a fixed power 4x scope. West of the Mississippi it was given 6x scope given the longer ranges encountered there.

The average hunting range east river was around 200-300 yards while it was 400-500 yards west river.

As an aside, that was back in the day when "long range" hunters were *actual* hunters and not wanna be pretend snipers. They respected things like the half second rule, minimum energy at the animal, and minimum velocity for expansion at the animal when making "long range" shots out to 400-500 yards.

Now you've got long range hunters attempting shots at 1000 yards or more using things like a 6.5 Creedmoor on elk. They'll deny it but they miss a lot more than they hit, and they have a lot more bad hits that leave the animal to die a slow death while the so called hunters shoots another animal to fill the tag.

Don't bother bringing that up on a long range forum or facebook page as they'll claim it's ethical because it's legal, indicating they have no clue what "ethics" means.


2) Fixed power scopes were preferred for hunting for three reasons.

First, with the much less efficient lens coatings of the era, fixed power scope had fewer lenses and consequently more throughput of available light.

Second, fixed power scopes provided much better optical quality (sharpness and resolution) at the same price point as a variable scope.

Third, and following in the above statement, it was oxymoronic to say "a good, inexpensive variable scope". Mass production methods were not what they are today and it was basically impossible to build an inexpensive variable scope that did not have a zero that wandered when you changed the magnification.

In a variable scope, in addition to the erector tube holding the reticle and making the adjustments in windage and elevation you have another lense or set of lenses that move back and forth along a helical track as you turn the adjustment knob. In order to prevent the zero from changing, the lenses must be perfectly mounted and aligned and must be near perfectly ground so there is no image shift as they are rotated.

Back in the day, that just didn't happen in an affordable scope. You zeroed at maximum magnification and if accuracy really mattered you shot at your maximum magnification.


3) There is no equal to the old Weaver K4 and K6 scopes.

They had steel tube construction and were just about bullet proof. There was some hysteresis in the adjustments that causes so lead and lag in adjustments, but the only adjustment you did was when you zeroed them. You zeroed, shot a group to confirm the zero and then left it alone. Once zeroed, they held their zero.

They were incredibly durable. I had a .243 that got dropped and landed on the objective bell. It hit hard enough to put a small dent the steel bell but still didn't lose its zero. They don't make them like that anymore and it's a shame.

There are much better scopes available, for a lot more money. But a used early steel tube K4 or K6 in excellent condition is still some of the best bang for the buck out there for a dedicated hunting rifle.

 

[Igiveup]

I have several young grand and great grandsons coming of shooting age. I think a 4x scope, after graduating from iron sights would be a good beginner scope to put on a .22. The kids shoot mostly on my property, but sometimes we go out into the forest to shoot. Not long range hunting, heck, most of my deer have been shot under 150 yds. and I hunt only in the West. I think the variable scopes give the little ones too much to fuss with and soon the rifle is out of focus, sighted in, etc. This has happened a couple times, hence the shopping for a single power scope. Thank You for all the replies.

 

[oldman10mm]

Where to find the old fixed power scopes-at gun shows, tables have a hard time selling the old quality scopes because everybody wants a zoom. I have a few from when I started shooting (paper punching) bolt action rifles. I find them useful for on 22lr rifles. The bolt actions get zooms. Difficult to see 17cal holes at 200yards so that rifle got a 6-24 zoom.

 

[DWalt]

Yes, the old Weaver fixed power scopes are usually fairly plentiful at gun shows and on eBay, and at reasonable prices. Also to be found at garage/estate sales. I have something like six of them (K4 and K2.5), all mounted on various .22 rifles. I don't believe I paid more than $25 for any of them. I have one Weaver K6 mounted on a pre-War Model 70. I bought that Weaver new back in the late 1960s.

Some claim parallax problems at close range, but I haven't noticed any while using them on my .22s which I usually zero at 50 yards. A K4 on my Remington 550-1 (my personal favorite .22 rifle):

 

[BB57]

.../

/...Some claim parallax problems at close range, but I haven't noticed any while using them on my .22s which I usually zero at 50 yards. A K4 on my Remington 550-1 (my personal favorite .22 rifle):

Most shooters really do not understand parallax error.

Parallax error is caused by the image produced by the lens system being in a different focal plane than the reticle, when the eye is not in the optical center of the lens system.

The amount of parallax error that occurs depends on:
- the distance between those two focal planes;
- the amount of magnification;
- how far off center your pupil is from the optical center; and
- how far the target is from the distance where the scope is adjusted for no parallax error.

----

To put that in practical terms:

The higher the magnification the greater the parallax error as the light is being "bent" more to create the magnified image and it creates a greater difference in the focal plane.

In addition, the higher the magnification the smaller the exit pupil and the greater the effect of having your eye slightly outside the optical center of the lens system.

As a result, low power scopes in the 1.5 to 4x range just don't demonstrate much parallax error compared to an 8x, 9x, 12x 16x, etc scope. Back in the day you rarely saw an adjustable objective lens on a 3-9x or lower power variable scope. That was because 9x was the point above which parallax error really starts to be a big issue. For the same reason, you rarely saw a scope that had a maximum power of more than 9x that did not have an adjustable objective lens.

----

Fit also matters. In order to minimize parallax error the rifle stock needs to fit you well enough to place your eye so that it is centered horizontally in the center of the cone of light produced by the scope. The scope also has to be mounted at the right height so that your eye is vertically centered in the scope as well.

Even if a scope has a lot of *potential* parallax error, if your eye is always in the optical center of the scope you won't have any parallax error.

Similarly, but a lot less ideally, even if your eye is outside the optical center of the scope, but is *consistently* in the same place for every shot, you'll have parallax error, but that error will be consistent and you can still shoot good groups.

Remember, even if the eye is off center, the closer your eye is to the center, and the lower the magnification, the less parallax error you will have.

----

How the scope is set from the factory also makes a difference in the amount of parallax error.

Most non adjustable objective or non "side focus" scopes that are made today and are intended for centerfire rifles have the parallax error set for 150 yards. Most rimfire scopes are set at the factory for 50 yards.

Back in the day scopes like the K4 were factory set with a zero parallax distance of 100 yards. That's a plus for a scope that will be used on a .22 LR rifle at 25-100 yards, compared a scope set for 150 yards. The low 4x magnification also greatly reduces the parallax error and the generous objective diameter for the power produces a large exit pupil.

----

You can see for yourself the magnitude of parallax error at any given distance. Set you rifle securely on bags or a bipod and rear bag a align the cross hairs on a target. Then, without moving the rifle, move your eye slightly side to side. As you move out to the side to where you can still get a full field of view, you'll see the cross hairs move on the target - unless you are at the distance where the scope is adjusted to be parallax free. The farther you are from that distance, the more error you will see, and the farther your eye moves from the center, the more error you will note.

If you have a scope with a parallax adjustment (either on the objective, or a side focus knob) you should do this same test to verify the adjustment is accurate. It often isn't, even on high end scopes.

 

[DWalt]

I am aware of the relationship between parallax error and magnification, but many are probably not. I tested out one of my Weaver K2.5 scopes at 50 yards and found that parallax error was essentially non-existent. I have not done that test with a K4, but I suspect the results would be close. The worst case of parallax error I have encountered involved a Tasco Red Dot sight, which has a magnification power of only 1x (but if course red dot sights operate on a different principle than optical scopes). Moving my head made the red dot wander all over the target at 50 yards. 2" to 3" groups at 50 yards was typical with it unless I was extremely careful about maintaining consistent eye positioning.

 

[Gene L]

Got a Zeiss Conquest 4x32 on a 30-06 and it wasn't all that cheap for a second string scope. Hard to find, too. Before, I had a fixed 32X Weaver on a .243 target rifle. It was fine for my uses, not as clear as a 3-9, but I could see very well at 100 yards. My target was the inside circle of those three-hole ring notebook paper reinforcement stick-ons. Could see quite well where to hold inside that tiny circle.

 

[crazyphil]

In my humble opinion the Weaver k4 was the best scope ever made. I had
a K4 mounted on a Model 70 Winchester 30:06 back in the late 1950s
when living in Montana. Believe it or not, I never missed anything that I
shot at including dear, antelope, elk and bear. I guess Weaver decided to
discontinue the K4. Why? I have no idea. Maybe you can find a good
pre-owned Weaver K4.

 

[smoothshooter]

A couple thoughts...

1) Way back in the day the standard scope for hunting east of the Mississippi was a fixed power 4x scope. West of the Mississippi it was given 6x scope given the longer ranges encountered there.

The average hunting range east river was around 200-300 yards while it was 400-500 yards west river.

As an aside, that was back in the day when "long range" hunters were *actual* hunters and not wanna be pretend snipers. They respected things like the half second rule, minimum energy at the animal, and minimum velocity for expansion at the animal when making "long range" shots out to 400-500 yards.

Now you've got long range hunters attempting shots at 1000 yards or more using things like a 6.5 Creedmoor on elk. They'll deny it but they miss a lot more than they hit, and they have a lot more bad hits that leave the animal to die a slow death while the so called hunters shoots another animal to fill the tag.

Don't bother bringing that up on a long range forum or facebook page as they'll claim it's ethical because it's legal, indicating they have no clue what "ethics" means.


2) Fixed power scopes were preferred for hunting for three reasons.

First, with the much less efficient lens coatings of the era, fixed power scope had fewer lenses and consequently more throughput of available light.

Second, fixed power scopes provided much better optical quality (sharpness and resolution) at the same price point as a variable scope.

Third, and following in the above statement, it was oxymoronic to say "a good, inexpensive variable scope". Mass production methods were not what they are today and it was basically impossible to build an inexpensive variable scope that did not have a zero that wandered when you changed the magnification.

In a variable scope, in addition to the erector tube holding the reticle and making the adjustments in windage and elevation you have another lense or set of lenses that move back and forth along a helical track as you turn the adjustment knob. In order to prevent the zero from changing, the lenses must be perfectly mounted and aligned and must be near perfectly ground so there is no image shift as they are rotated.

Back in the day, that just didn't happen in an affordable scope. You zeroed at maximum magnification and if accuracy really mattered you shot at your maximum magnification.


3) There is no equal to the old Weaver K4 and K6 scopes.

They had steel tube construction and were just about bullet proof. There was some hysteresis in the adjustments that causes so lead and lag in adjustments, but the only adjustment you did was when you zeroed them. You zeroed, shot a group to confirm the zero and then left it alone. Once zeroed, they held their zero.

They were incredibly durable. I had a .243 that got dropped and landed on the objective bell. It hit hard enough to put a small dent the steel bell but still didn't lose its zero. They don't make them like that anymore and it's a shame.

There are much better scopes available, for a lot more money. But a used early steel tube K4 or K6 in excellent condition is still some of the best bang for the buck out there for a dedicated hunting rifle.

Anyone that shoots at a living creature at 1,000 yards that is not able to shoot back at you needs a swift kick in the ***.

 

[BB57]

I am aware of the relationship between parallax error and magnification, but many are probably not. I tested out one of my Weaver K2.5 scopes at 50 yards and found that parallax error was essentially non-existent. I have not done that test with a K4, but I suspect the results would be close. The worst case of parallax error I have encountered involved a Tasco Red Dot sight, which has a magnification power of only 1x (but if course red dot sights operate on a different principle than optical scopes). Moving my head made the red dot wander all over the target at 50 yards. 2" to 3" groups at 50 yards was typical with it unless I was extremely careful about maintaining consistent eye positioning.

Agreed. Many dot sights have horrible parallax issues, others are not bad at all.

The only red dot sights I use on a pistol are one of the Ultradot sights. I prefer the tube style design used on the Ultradot as it greatly reduces reflections and the narrow tube used has two major advantages in terms of parallax.

First the small lens diameter minimizes parallax error. Second, the small tube makes it easy to center the dot in the field of view, which puts your pupil in the optical center of the system, which effectively eliminates what little parallax error might be present.

Even better for a bullseye shooter, even if you put the dot at the extreme edges of the field of view to produce the maximum parallax error, the maximum error will still keep the shots in the X ring at both 25 yards and 50 yards. This maximum parallax error is most pronounced at 50 feet, where the resulting error will be the same size as the 9 ring. Remember, that's the *maximum* error withe dot all the way at the edges. If you keep the dot centered in the field of view, the errors are not perceptible at any of the above ranges. I also have no issues hitting 6 plates at 200 yards with one on an AR-15 or on my AR-180.

The Ultradots are also really durable and hold zeros really well. I've used them on both pistols and on tactical rifles. in both cases, the small tube diameter also obstructs very little field of view and makes shooting with both eyes open very practical.

In contrast, Red dot sights with large lenses will usually have large amounts of parallax error, and the large lens makes it harder to accurately center the dot. It's a lose - lose proposition.

The red dots using the open design are much more prone to parallax error, as well as reflections that can make it harder to use in some lighting conditions. They are also far more prone to damage.

----

I have a couple Burris Fast Fire III reflex sights and due to their small size and the high quality of the lens, they have an acceptable amount of error is you keep the dot centered in the field of view. But they have a lot more error than an Ultradot and they are optimized to be parallax free at 100 yards. Maximum error at 25 yards is about 4.5 MOA. That decreases to 3 MOA at 50 yards and no error at 100 yards. I use one on an Uzi since it mounts very low on the bolt cover and will co-witness with the iron sights (which also serve to keep your eye in precisely the right place). I set it up with the dot sitting on top of the front sight post. Given the Uzi's max effective range is about 100 yards it's an ideal set up.

The also make a rail mount for it that provides a fair amount of impact protection.

Finally, I also have a couple Burris 332 prismatic sights on my 9mm AR-15s. The Ballistic CQ reticle has hash marks that are near perfect for shooting 115 gr XTPs out to 200 yards and the sight is parallax free at 100 yards.

An advantage of a prism sight is that the reticle is visible when it is powered off and non illuminated so it is not battery dependent. When properly mounted on a carbine or rifle, the parallax error at ranges other than 100 yards is minimal and the 3x magnification minimizes parallax error anyway.

The low magnification and distinct donut shaped reticle also allow you to engage targets at close range with both eyes open.

----

In terms of traditional low power compact scopes I still like the original Colt 3x and 4x scopes on carry handle ARs. Again with the small objective lens and the low magnification parallax error isn't significant:

 

[BB57]

Anyone that shoots at a living creature at 1,000 yards that is not able to shoot back at you needs a swift kick in the ***.

That makes us the token "liberals" on most of those forums.

 

[Igiveup]

Found a K4 Weaver locally and am going to try it out. I like the older fine cross hairs and it should make the new shooter concentrate a bit more. Thanks for all the replies.