Long Unertl scopes...any good?
Are there any advantages and if so why to those old Unertl's with the recoil spring and external adjustments. I mean the whole scope moves in the mounts...and why are they so long?
0
-
Those were the state of the art target scopes at the time. Technology was not always as advanced as it is now. Where we are now with technology, 30 years from now will look like those "old, long, Unertl scopes.
That said, they do have a place on vintage target rifles. A lot of them rested on Winchester Model 52's, Remington 40-XR's, and MossBerg 44's. This is when "Bulleseye", was still allowed to be taught in schools, and most likely was a part of the Physical Education agenda. Bulleseye shooting in clubs was big, and being able to put all your shots thru the same exact hole, or as close to it as possible, determined who was the best that day.
Is there any advantages over scopes of today? Nope, not in the least...not unless you just want to turn back the hand of time.
Best0 -
The scopes were not just for smallbore. They were used in the 600 and 1,000 matches in hipower competition. The scopes were designed to slide in the mounts instead of being jolted by recoil. The spring was to return the scope to battery not directly to protect it from recoil. The scopes could be pulled manually back into battery when the scope was not equipped with the spring. 0 -
Maybe old school but they still work and the old ones are in big demand for big money right now. the higher the magnification the more the money. My father took first in a slow prone match at 300 yards about ten years ago. He was using a 2" 15X. This is a no artificial rest shoot. Shooting of the elbow with a sling. I think he shot 199, 198, 199 out of 200 possible. Used a Remington 700 .223 with 55 grain bullets. I own a couple of 1 1/2" one in 20x and one in 16x, also a 10x Vulture. 0 -
As for their quality, the Unertl was Carlos Hathcock's scope of choice. 
In fact, he set the record for longest distance sniper shot up to that time with one mounted on an M2 Browning.0 -
Wonder why they are made so long, magnification could be achieved without being so long? And you would think that the scope sliding within the external mounts would not be accurate. Why not internal always center reticle? 0 -
They had not been invented yet. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jaegermister
Why not internal always center reticle?One advantage of an externally adjustable is that the reticle is fixed in the precise center of the lens, giving it the greatest possible clarity no matter what adjustments are made.
With an internal type, the greater the distance it's adjusted for or the more wind dope you dial in the farther the center of the reticle moves from optimum lens position.0 -
External mounts are very accurate and precise if you keep them clean.
The long tubes avoid some optical errors by sheer distance instead of complex and expensive designs. When they were in production, they were the way to go for accurate shooting. Developments in lens and mechanical design let the internal adjustment short tube scopes finally catch up, but it took them many years.0 -
To this day some target shooters will have a scope "frozen" and use external adjustments. Nothing wrong with external scope adjustments. 0 -
In the 50s there was a lot of debate as to which was more dependable, internal or external adjustments. The debate still exists. Many or most of your of your scopes today have adjustments that are not predictable (except for high end). Try to move the cross hairs a determined nember of clicks, shoot and them move back the exact number. Very few scopes will return to the origional point of impact. One of the biggest improvements in scopes is lense coating. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments