[Naphtali]

There are few fixed power standard eye relief telescopic sights between 2.5 and 4X available in USA as current production. . . . Which brings me to several questions about such sights AND immediately previous generations, such as Leupold's M-8 or FX-II fixed power series.

1. While I am nearly certain that Leupold's FX-III 4x33 is superior mechanically and optically to Nikon's 4x40 Buckmaster series made in the Philippines, does superiority translate to a significant improvement in usability, or in trouble-free longevity?

2. Leupold's M-8 series was in production for a generation - I have seen a 3X that was made in 1977. While I anticipate Leupold made qualitative improvement in optical glass, glass coatings, and perhaps seal design or material during M-8's production life, should prospective buyers use date of manufacture as a deal-breaker for the M-8 series?

3. How mechanically and optically significant is the transition from M-8 to FX-II, M-8 to FX-III?

4. Leupold presently offers FX-II and FX-III sights as standard big game, rimfire, and compact versions. Yet all use 25.4 mm (one inch) basis tubes. Can these "versions" be used interchangably - that is, can rimfire designated sights be used blandly and uneventfully on centerfire rifles, such as 30-06, 45-70, etc.?

 

[jmortimer]

Sorry if off topic but the Weaver K-4 is a nice scope at a great price. http://www.midwayusa.com/browse/Bro...g=657***11392***11396***15272***&brandId=1477

 

[Naphtali]

Sorry if off topic but the Weaver K-4 is a nice scope at a great price. http://www.midwayusa.com/browse/Bro...g=657***11392***11396***15272***&brandId=1477

Not off topic at all. Thanks for the information. My universe of fixed power telescopic sights has increased.

 

[kdub]

The older M-8's require a very hard to find adjustable scope mount (all windage/elevation adjustments in the mount itself). Not sure just when this was abandoned and turrets installed on the scope tube.

I would hope you would find the overall quality of the fixed power Leupolds to be superior to the Nikons.

 

[Tnhunter]

As far as using a "rimfire" Leupold scope on a centerfire rifle, It's my understanding that the build quality is exactly the same with the only differences being in the parallax distance adjustment (normally 50 yds for rimfire, 75 yds for shotgun and 100 yds for centerfire scopes) and perhaps the "fineness" of the crosshairs.

 

[MikeG]

I think that one of the better fixed power scopes you can find is the Leupold 6x42. Six power, 42mm objective. Apparently they were somewhat popular among competition shooters limited to 6x magnification? I stumbled across one several years ago and put it on my Marlin 39a. At the time, didn't realize what a gem they were.

Don't know if they are still in production but I'd grab another one in a minute, if such were to turn up.

 

[Sinbad12-2007]

Well, for what it's worth, I've had a Weaver K4 on my Sporterized 1903 Springfield since the early '60's and can find no fault with it. It still works just fine and I wouldn't change it.

 

[Bird Dog II]

I have 2 fixed power scopes. A Nikon Monarch 4x40 and a Weaver K6 6x38. Both are outstanding, clear, bright and appear to be very well made and durable (as you would expect a fixed scope to be). I have to tell you, for the difference in price, I would just get the Weaver I think if I had to choose between the two. The Monarch is exellent, but I can find no practical improvement it offers over the Weaver. It is $150 more of course (as is the Leupold FX series). Basically you can get two of the Weavers for the price of one Monarch or FX.

I am absolutely positive, in a rugged western hunting situation where you really couldn't afford a scope failure for any reason, two Weaver K6s (or K4s) would be better than one Leupold FX or Nikon Monarch.

 

[MontyF]

Although I've used the Weaver K series fixed power scopes and had no issues with them. I consider there are better choices when mounted on a hunting rifle. The older Weavers didn't have the lens technology amd coatings that are available today. Not bad mouthing the quality of the Weavers but they are a dark scope in low light.

 

[Ralph McLaney]

Fixed power!

I prefer the simplicity of fixed power scopes. My lever guns wear Weaver K2.5 or Leupold 2.5 compact scopes. An FXII 4 power replaced a 3x9 on my 270.

 

[Bird Dog II]

Although I've used the Weaver K series fixed power scopes and had no issues with them. I consider there are better choices when mounted on a hunting rifle. The older Weavers didn't have the lens technology amd coatings that are available today. Not bad mouthing the quality of the Weavers but they are a dark scope in low light.

Boy I don't know. I did a comparison test.....it is on here somewhere. I took my K6 (a new one I got about 5 years ago), a Leupold VXII 3x9, my Monarch 4x, and a couple Fullfield IIs and did a comparison at low light at predawn one morning. I set them all to 6 power (except the Monarch). The K6 was equal to the Monarch in brightness and clarity and slightly brighter than the Leupold set on 6x. The K6 was outstanding. The FFIIs were a step below the Leupold. Considering the K6 is half the price of the Leupold and Nikon Monarch, it seems to be the best value. I would not hesitate to put it on a high quality hunting rifle.

 

[Naphtali]

Boy I don't know. I did a comparison test.....it is on here somewhere. I took my K6 (a new one I got about 5 years ago), a Leupold VXII 3x9, my Monarch 4x, and a couple Fullfield IIs and did a comparison at low light at predawn one morning. I set them all to 6 power (except the Monarch). The K6 was equal to the Monarch in brightness and clarity and slightly brighter than the Leupold set on 6x. The K6 was outstanding. The FFIIs were a step below the Leupold. Considering the K6 is half the price of the Leupold and Nikon Monarch, it seems to be the best value. I would not hesitate to put it on a high quality hunting rifle.

Where are the new Weavers made? I buy nothing from Red China and a few other countries.

 

[jmortimer]

It appears to be Japan but I believe some are assembled in the Phillipines with Japanese optics.
http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh/brand.html#weaver
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/80-years-weaver-scopes-2/
http://www.weaveroptics.com/optics/riflescopes/k4.aspx
I like the 80th anniversary K4

 

[HardBall]

Since you mentioned Nikon's Buckmaster 4x40 fixed scope I thought I'd through my .02 in...

I can't say much about the longevity or whether it's actually made "better" than a comparable Leupold but it does have the best image I've seen in a scope (even compared to my Leupolds). It's super sharp, contrasty and has great color. I bought it on closeout from Natchez after trying to mount a newer Weaver K4 on my long action Mossberg ATR-100 which didn't work out because of the spacing/position of the scope rings. I was duly impressed with the Buckmaster for the price I paid- $75.

 

[broom_jm]

You mention in your OP that the Leupold M8 was in production for a generation. It was only 2 or 3 generations ago when a certain gun writer advocated nothing but fixed power scopes for big-game rifles. He said 4X was plenty for most any hunting situation and only moved up to 6X for his varmint rigs. Now, times have certainly changed, with untold improvements in the design, manufacture and quality of rifle scopes, but the actual "needs" haven't. A 200 yard shot is still a 200 yard shot, and while my old eyes like at least a 7X for such, 4 power will still get the job done.

I had a fixed 4X Bushnell on my 44 Mag carbine. It was sufficient for a time, although I will readily admit that the image quality of that particular scope was not nearly as good as some of the others I have, as it is a very inexpensive model meant for a .22 LR. Still, I was able to use it to shoot satisfactory groups out to 100 yards, which is nearly the effective range of that cartridge, IHMO.

 

[MontyF]

Bird-dog my tests which wasn't close to being scientific didn't turn out the same as yours. Standing on my deck at dawn looking at a wooded creek through all the scopes I owned at the time. With the Weaver K's in both fixed 3x and 4x, everything was dark.... couldn't pick out any detail. The Bushnell and Tasco 4X's I had at the time wasn't as good as the Weaver... totally dark.
The rest of the scopes are listed in order of brightness with the last one the brightest:

Redfield 3-9 widefield
Leupold 3-9 Vari-XII
Nikon 3-9 Pre-Monarch
Nikon 3-9 Monarch

 

[Bird Dog II]

Bird-dog my tests which wasn't close to being scientific didn't turn out the same as yours. Standing on my deck at dawn looking at a wooded creek through all the scopes I owned at the time. With the Weaver K's in both fixed 3x and 4x, everything was dark.... couldn't pick out any detail. The Bushnell and Tasco 4X's I had at the time wasn't as good as the Weaver... totally dark.
The rest of the scopes are listed in order of brightness with the last one the brightest:

Redfield 3-9 widefield
Leupold 3-9 Vari-XII
Nikon 3-9 Pre-Monarch
Nikon 3-9 Monarch

That is what is a little troubling about scopes over the last few years. Manufacturers seem to keep changing plants trying to cut costs. You can have a scope made in Japan with high quality one year, moved to the Philipines the next year, and then to China two years later. Even Leupold has moved most their component making to China. My K6 is 5, maybe even 7 years old. I suspect it was made in Japan (the Japanese do optics extremely well). The newer ones are likely made in China/Philipines.

 

[HardBall]

My K6 is 5, maybe even 7 years old. I suspect it was made in Japan (the Japanese do optics extremely well). The newer ones are likely made in China.

The Weaver 3-9AO "classic" rimfire scope that I just bought says made in Japan. The two Weaver V16's that I sampled earlier in the year also said made in Japan. I don't know if all of their scopes are made in Japan- I have read on forums where some claim that Weaver's are actually made in the Philippines which is supposedly still better than China. All I know is I really like all of Weaver's "classic" line of scopes and the scopes do say made in Japan.

 

[Naphtali]

. . . Even Leupold has moved most their component making to China. . .

??? Leupold advertises heavily, and persuasively, that their products are made in U.S.A. I anticipated unground optical glass originated either from Japan or from Zeiss subsidiary, Schott. If your statement is accurate, I will no longer be considering Leupold for anything.

Weaver, on the other hand, is "coming up fast on the outside." When did "new" Weaver cease offering the K2.5 scope?
***
Tangentially, my shooting partner and I were testing my Marlin 1895s at 200 yards this afternoon. One rifle has Brockman's receiver mounted adjustable aperture sight AND Marble's tang sight. The other has only a Brockman's sight, it's Marble's tang sight still being unmounted. I am left-handed; my shooting partner is right-handed. The testing has been to determine which rear sight yields better accuracy and which is quicker, more transparent to acquire the target.

Two things became obvious for me after three shots with the dual sighted Marlin. Marble's tang sight achieves superior accuracy compared with the receiver sight as well as superior quickness to acquire the target. . . . And the terrible news: lefties cannot use Marble's tang sight. I think the problem originates with placement of serial number on tang, the sight being mounted farther to the rear than occurs on the 1886. I had no problem shooting a friend's the tang sight on a Winchester/USRAC 1886 rifle that Doug Turnbull rendered into a 475 Turnbull. The recoil was brisk without being severe. But on my 1895, the windage-pivot bashes me in the nose with every shot. This does not occur for righties.

So soon I'll be selling one New-in-Box Marble's sight, plus one used one.