weaver scopes
How are the new generation Weaver scopes? Advantages and disadvantages Is the glass any good ? Where are they made ?
0
-
yes can anybody tell me anything about a weaver kt-15 scope.is anybody useing one.i'm looking at one for a varmint rifle[:D][:D]
thanks for any info.0 -
I use the newer T-36 models for benchrest shooting, and I try to find as many of the old US made ones as I can at Gun shows and pawn shops. They are decent scopes for the money. 0 -
weaver as a company has been sold and re-sold, so it's hard to just go by the name. their current scopes are considered quite good optically, perhaps less so on durability. i have a 1.5x5 grand slam on my dakota 270 and am pleased. however that said a lot of us prefer burris in the same price range. 0 -
I have a number of older Weavers on older rifles and in their day they were respectable scopes. The optics and especially the lens coatings are now where near todays standards. As stated above, the Weaver company, or at least the name, has changed hands several times over the years since the El Paso days of the 1950's. Quality and durability has been up and down with the fortunes of the company.
As laogai has correctly observed todays scopes are decent quality optically but durability is less respected. Also the focus ring on the Grand Slam is rubber armored and huge, making it difficult or impossible to pull the bolt handle past it without removing your thumb. I too suggest you give a good, hard look at Burris. You won't be sorry.0 -
quote:Originally posted by fair oaks
Greetings, I was curious about Weaver brand scopes. Are they a decent value, where does their accuracy and durability compare to the Bushnell, Leupold,Nikon and other big name brands. Evidently the Weaver has been around for quite some time, they must be doing something right. Thanks for your thoughts.
I think it's important to remember all these companies exist to earn a profit and each is capable of making a scope better or worse than the other depending on the price point they want to hit.
Also, what is the scope going to be used for? I see guys at the range using variable scopes - and never, ever take them off the highest setting. Again, given that manufacturers must make money these shooters are paying for things they are not using - features and parts and manufacturing time costs money. If you punch paper at 100 to 300 yds, is a $600.00 6 to 24X illuminated mil dot reticle Leupold better than a $390.00 Weaver 24X with plain crosshairs?
So I'd say find out what features you value in a scope and define the purpose of the scope, then look at make & model.0 -
The old Weavers were great value for the money! I have a Weaver V-12 sitting on top of a Remington Varmit Special 22-250 that has taken many a woodchuck/varmit since 1967 and still shoots strong, better than these old eyes are getting. But I agree with the previous Burris comment....Burris is now where the old Weaver used to be..good optics for the $. I have several, both pistol and rifle and they do a fine job. Good shooting! 0 -
When ever a Weaver, what ever vintage, or Bausch & Lomb or Bushnell come my way I test them at the range. If they work ok they go up on one or another of the auction sites and are sold off. Burris is the minimum scope I will bother with these days. I don't have the patience to deal with scopes failing neither at the range or in the field. The last I knew Weaver was part of the same group as owned Simmons and Redfield, this may have changed. At that time their warranty wasn't worth spit if you didn't have all the paperwork, properly filled out and filed and it was only good for the original owner. I'm not trying to say who owns them and what their warranty is now, just do your homework first as things change..... 0 -
Us "rifle looneys" owe a lot to Bill Weaver. He was instrumental in persuading the rifle manufacturers to drill & tap their rifles for scope mounts. His scopes were used on WWII sniper rifles. He made good quality scopes that were affordable to the working man. Whatever you think of the Weaver top mount, (and I've swore at it more than several times when trying to square up a cross hair) when you get it set, it holds the scope, no matter what. The V8, while short-lived, (and I never quite trusted it) kick-started the variables (the Balvar and the KV didn't quite do it). I hated the plastic lens retainer rings and the other plastic parts they put on their scopes for a while and, toward the last, they seemed to want to build a scope as heavy as possible. I have one of the 50th anniversary K4's from 1982 and shortly after that, the El Paso facility shut down. To me, almost as sad as Winchester. Leupold was just getting started when Weaver was in its hay day. It's hard to envision what the scope situation would be today if not for Bill Weaver. 0 -
I have used the Weaver V series extensively and have been very impressed. I have a good friend that builds a 50 BMG rifle and in many cases people can't afford a Night Force scope after buying the rifle. The Weaver V24 scopes work great and have held up to the recoil well. We have probably sold around 200 scopes and not a single one has been returned. At least half of those went on 50's. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by BHAVIN
I have used the Weaver V series extensively and have been very impressed. I have a good friend that builds a 50 BMG rifle and in many cases people can't afford a Night Force scope after buying the rifle. The Weaver V24 scopes work great and have held up to the recoil well. We have probably sold around 200 scopes and not a single one has been returned. At least half of those went on 50's.
BHAVIN,
That's good information to know. I have one Weaver grand slam 4-14 on my 6.5x55 CZ 550. It's always on. I will say if the rifle had better accuracy potential(it holds around MOA) it would show the scope as having the better or worse potential. I've tried my other accuracy scopes on the rifle and that's just about what it holds.
fair oaks,
As far as the older Weaver scopes go I would say they are certainly dependable, repeatable tools. They don't however, have great optics. The technology back then just wasn't there. Even great names in scopes from back then don't have the clarity that most of the midrange scopes of today have. The coatings they can put on the glass just makes it a lot better to see through. Anyhow, as noted Weaver has gone through some bad PR for their lower end scopes not holding up.
Bottom line: Older, made in El Paso scopes are durable and repeatable. If you can see through them they are a good value. Scopes made in the eighties/nineties may or may not be all that durable. Made in Japan by the same manufacturers of Tasco scopes. Scopes of the later nineties are still made in Japan but have better durability. My Grand Slam has very good optics and is very repeatable. I haven't tested it's full durability yet.0 -
Weaver scopes are made by Light Optical Works in Japan. This has been the only company that has made Weaver scopes out of the USA. Weaver is now owned by ATK, basically the same company that bought Weaver in the 80's. Blount was the parent company for Omark, CCI, etc....Meade did own Weaver for a few years and almost drove the name into the mud. Meade also owns Simmons and has recently sold the Redfield line to Leupold (I'm pretty sure).
That being said, Weaver has always been a good scope for the money. An honest, well built piece. Sightron in the last few years has been moving into Weavers territory, along with Burris and their Indo-China made products.
I don't hesitate to buy a Weaver scope, whether ElPaso or Japan, when the price is too good to pass up.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments