older Weaver scopes - differences ?
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Joined
·
222 Posts
I've got an El Paso K-4 60B that I got from my Dad. Don't have any info but did find this interesting story in a web search. Cheers.
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/scopes-sights/331034-weaver-k4-60-b.html
http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/scopes-sights/331034-weaver-k4-60-b.html
Joined
·
916 Posts
I'm sorry that the guy who wrote that story had a bad experience with his one K4 weaver. My Dad has at least a bushel of them on various guns and they are outstanding. I would not hesitate to take one of his on any hunt I was going on.
Maybe his are newer than the ones from the story, but if I had to guess I'd say they range from the early to mid 60s to the early 70s.
Never fogged, never failed, no problems. Ever.
Maybe his are newer than the ones from the story, but if I had to guess I'd say they range from the early to mid 60s to the early 70s.
Never fogged, never failed, no problems. Ever.
I'm not sure of the chronology of the suffixes, believe the "60" series date from that era from when they were introduced.
I've owned a LOT of Weaver scopes and I've had mixed results. I've had 3 of them shoot the lenses in the ocular loose. One was a V4.5 that gave up the ghost after a year on my 375 H&H, still functioned, just the rear lenses would rattle back and forth about an inch. Obviously it wasn't water tight either.
Had the same thing happen to a K2.5X on the same rifle. The V4.5 had less than 2000 rounds under it when it let go, and I'd bought it new (about 3 years before Weaver closed their doors). The K2.5 went with less than 1000 rounds under it. Last was a K3 on my beloved old .444, took a while, but it shot loose too.
The K and V series weren't noted for being fog/water proof, in fact I don't think they were sealed and purged. They were also only magnesium flouride coated, not multi-coated so light transmission isn't the greatest when new, and as he scope ages and the coatings begin to flake it goes down hill too. Still for all their faults, they were an OK scope in their day. With the 3 bad ones in the mix, I still had/have probably 25 decent ones.
I've owned a LOT of Weaver scopes and I've had mixed results. I've had 3 of them shoot the lenses in the ocular loose. One was a V4.5 that gave up the ghost after a year on my 375 H&H, still functioned, just the rear lenses would rattle back and forth about an inch. Obviously it wasn't water tight either.
Had the same thing happen to a K2.5X on the same rifle. The V4.5 had less than 2000 rounds under it when it let go, and I'd bought it new (about 3 years before Weaver closed their doors). The K2.5 went with less than 1000 rounds under it. Last was a K3 on my beloved old .444, took a while, but it shot loose too.
The K and V series weren't noted for being fog/water proof, in fact I don't think they were sealed and purged. They were also only magnesium flouride coated, not multi-coated so light transmission isn't the greatest when new, and as he scope ages and the coatings begin to flake it goes down hill too. Still for all their faults, they were an OK scope in their day. With the 3 bad ones in the mix, I still had/have probably 25 decent ones.
Thx for the replies but still looking for what the letters mean. I have a Weaver K4 60B on a Savage 30-06 - it is an awesome scope and combo - no matter the age. But, I have no idea what the "B" means vs and "F" on another K4. Or, K1 for that matter
I think there are differences between reticles and paralax of the different K4 scopes ( things I'm not too familiar with to begin with ).
I'm looking to buy a used one so I want to know what I'm looking for...
Thx
I think there are differences between reticles and paralax of the different K4 scopes ( things I'm not too familiar with to begin with ).
I'm looking to buy a used one so I want to know what I'm looking for...
Thx
Joined
·
5,447 Posts
I do not know what/when the progression of Weaver markings represent. I do know that .375 H & Hs were notoriously hard on scopes of all brands. I have a K4-C3 that I have always thought was a 60s product. I had it refurbished by Mr. Ruiz about 1990 (dust specs or coating flaking internally) and it has been better than new ever since. I have a K3-1 that I know the history on, It was on a 1973 Octagon new. I also have a K4 Microtrac burried in the back of the safe that I bought new in about 1980 (+ or - 1.) Microtracs were Bill Weavers downfall. They were a bit pricier than folks were accustomed to paying for Weavers and were just about as good as any, but cost more to build. I thought I had a NIB 6X Microtrac, but I cant find it. Maybe sold it or packed it away somewhere? The early Weavers were reportedly not as water resistant as Leupolds, but I have never had moisture in one of mine. Good day and hope this bit of info helps a little. Jack
Joined
·
272 Posts
I guess the analogy that I would use based on my experience with scopes back in the 60's & 70's - Weaver was a Chevrolet, Redfield was a Buick, and Leupold was a Cadillac. Then here came the Toyotas and Nissans... 
8)
The "K" series was great quality for the money with great warranty & customer service. The "Marksman" series came along to compete with the chain-store Bushnells and Tascos - not so great.
8)
The "K" series was great quality for the money with great warranty & customer service. The "Marksman" series came along to compete with the chain-store Bushnells and Tascos - not so great.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Join the discussion
