Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Refurbished steel-tube Weaver K2.5 tough enough for .375 H&H recoil?

Hey folks,

I'm thinking very seriously of buying a Ruger #1-H Tropical in .375 H&H, and wanted to know if any of you have an opinion on whether or not an older steel tube El Paso Weaver K2.5 newly refurbished by Weaver Scope Repair would be tough enough to take the recoil. I really like these old Weavers with post & crosshair reticles, and they have around 5" of eye relief, which I like for the #1 (and also for the higher recoil of a rifle like this).

So, what do you think? Tough enough?

The other possibility that I'm still mulling over is getting a #1 RSI rebarreled to 9.3x62. That combo would be around 7.5 pounds scoped ... same question: would the scope stand up to the recoil?

Thanks for any insights!

Liam

Yep; it should handle it fine.

But, I think you oughta rebarrel the RSI to 9.3 and put the scope there instead... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Hey, VA ... how did I know you were going to say that? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

That would be very cool. Expensive though ... I can find 1H's around $700 ... getting an RSI and rebarreling would probably double that ... but it's a thought, and one I'm still drooling over. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Thanks!
Liam

Yup , no problem............I've used my old K3 on light 12 ga. firing 3 inch slugs , 7 mags , 300 s, 30/06 , 50 cal. smokepoles loaded to the gills , 45/70 s , and now 375 Weatherby.......she's still rollin on......

I have an old 1-4.5 Weaver, not the same I know and I had TK Lee put in a dot for me.

I had a 416 Taylor once upon a time, it blew the glass out of the old Weaver.

Mark D

I have a V12 that went belly up on the 7mag........I don't think the old Weaver variables were up to the same tuffness as the fixed K s .

I bought a used 2.5 Weaver about 40 years ago. The scope was sitting on a 4 didgit pre war 70 in a Stith mount. Today, it is on a muzzleoader. This scope has exposed adjustment turrets with no caps. The turrets are brass. Anybody know when this scope was manufactured?

STony, the exposed adjustment Weavers were the very first model in late 1945 or early 46, made, I think, only as K2.5 and K4. I think within a year or so they were improved with screw caps over the adjustments, but the optics were the same. I like these because of very long eye relief - this was before gunsmiths knew how to alter bolts on military rifles and the scopes were set down ahead of the bolt handles.

Ditto. And these scopes are prized by certain people, especially some of us who shoot Ruger #1 rifles. The oldest K2.5 and K4 scopes are some of the best there are in terms of eye relief, and their classic looks fit right in with the #1. I have two original K2.5's, an original K4, and a K4-60. Wouldn't trade them for much of anything that's available new these days.

Liamh

I've a few and they're nothing more than they are...nostalgic trinkets.

Wouldn't fathom using one seriously,they simply ride the kids' RWS pellet rifles........................

It all depends on what sort of actual use you ultimately plan for your rifle. You can start with that Weaver if you must, but I don't think you'll truly be able to discover the accuracy potential of your rifle with any fixed 2.5x scope. With a new rifle, I start out with a proven 6.5-20x target scope until I get the loads figued out, then once the various accuracy bugs are sorted out and corrected, I then switch to the scope I intend to actually hunt with. By starting out with an established scope that is proven accurate and reliable, it's also easy to discover if there's a mechanical problem with the hunting scope that you ultimately select. Lots of rifles get rebedded etc, when the real problem isn't the rifle -- it's the scope.

For a working 375 H&H, I consider a Leupold 1.75-6x or 2.5-8x to be ideal choices. Even in Africa, I've had long-shot opportunities when I've had a 375 H&H in my hands that were made just that much easier because I had the ability to turn the scope up to 6x.

In some cases, certain shots would have been impossible if I had just a fixed 2.5X scope on my rifle. One time in Zimbabwe, we had climbed a very steep rock kopje late in the day to glass for kudu. We spotted a very big bull in a saddle that was between the kopje we were on and another one, but this bull was largely concealed by brush. We managed to close the distance between us and the bull to 300 yards, but there was no way to get closer. At that point, it was very late in the day and getting dark, but I had spotted with my binoculars one small opening to shoot through. With the scope set at 1.75x, I couldn't really seen anything, but by simply turning up the scope to 6x, I not only increased the twilight factor so that I could see well enough to shoot, but that opening I had spotted suddenly stood out as a solid reference point for shot placement.

That kudu, to this day, is the biggest and best kudu bull that I've ever taken (and I've taken more than a few), but he would have lived to see another day and I never would have collected him if I would have had a fixed 2.5x scope on my 375 H&H instead of a 1.75-6x............

AD

I wouldn't think about using a scope this old on an African safari or any other expensive hunt. They are great scopes I have a refur K4 on a Sako .308 that is a collector rifle(safe queen). I use only Swarovski, Zeiss, & Leupold scopes on rifles that I carry to Africa. Just my opinion.

Barsness did an article on tough scopes for the July-August issue of Rifle magazine. The first thing he said was that the fixed magnification scopes are much tougher than any variable.
He went on to talk about D'Arcy Echols experience with the .458 Lott. No variable by anybody has held up on Echols $7000 rifles in that round. But the fixed magnification scopes do.
The old steel tude Weavers have a first class rep for doing so among the fixed magnification scopes. A rebuilt one should be as good as a new one in that respect.
Ditto on the comments about a 2.5X as a big game scope. Because of it's lack of twilight performance, I won't use one. I prefer the 6X, but do also use the 4X. E

Have to remind the 2 bulls in my trophy room that my 1.5-4x20 Swarovski on my 416 Rigby(ported) will not work. Probably shouldn't take it on my next safari it's only had about 325 rounds to shake it apart.

Not the same thing. Try it on a .458 Lott or a .500 T-Rex. E

As for durability, Finn Aagard had one on his .375 as a guide in Africa for many years. Durability was what he asked about.

Elmer Keith wrote that he got better groups with a bold post in a 2.5 or 3x than a crosshair because it gave him a better reference point.

E- More BS. Why don't you base your opinions on real experiences vs. others opinions. I do. The Rigby with porting has sufficent recoil to wreck a cheap scope. Have you ever shot one?? I have several friends with Lotts that have variables that has held together just fine. How many friends do you have that have actually used scopes on Lotts?

I became a rifle crank over fifty years ago, at about the time the transition from receiver sights to scopes took hold. I began with a Weaver 330 on a .22. Believe me, the K2.5 and K4 were a revelation. While scopes today are certainly better, the improvement is really only incremental and I very much doubt you can shoot closer groups from the bench with a new Loopy set on 4x than you can with an old K4. You might get a little more shooting time as the sun goes down but that's about it.