Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Period correct scope for my H&R 5200 (M12)?

I have no tools, or room for tools at the moment... so...to the gunsmith they go.

Al-

An end mill Something like this??


7/64" 4 FLUTE SINGLE END CARBIDE END MILL 7/64" X 1/8" X 3/8" X 1-1/2"

Yep. -Al

Scope mount for H & R
https://www.egwguns.com/winchester-52-target-fits-kimber-82c-82g-rem-37-picatinny-rail-0-moa

As with many such things, form follows function. I've always had less than admiring thoughts, aesthetically speaking, when seeing Picatinny rails mounted on classic rifles. Of course the rifle in question here falls into that gray time period between "classic" and "modern", so do what you will in that regard.

When these rifles were built, the time honored Unertl/Targetspot/Fecker was succumbing to wonderful advances in internal adjustment scopes. That's not to say that a top-tier external adjustment target scope would be out of place on an H&R today, just that it is open to a myriad of possibilities that would all be "period correct". Personally, if one fell into my lap, I wouldn't hesitate to mount an old-school target scope on it - and wouldn't hesitate to do what's necessary to achieve it (mainly because I have over a dozen such scopes that I move around on-and-off of maybe 20 rifles). Ruining "collector's value" by d/t'ing extra holes on the receiver ring and barrel to accomplish that? Meh. To me, and a lot of non-collecting shooters, value is added that makes up for the loss in an investor/collector's eyes - just depends on who you or your heirs tries to sell it to down the line.

The Lyman arrived today, glass needs cleaning (hopefully just the outer), functions seems all fine. Mounted it up on my H&R 451 (which is probably more period correct than the 5200). Damn, that's fine. Nothing really prepared me for how LONG it is though. LOL. Barely fit with the front ring pushed alll the way forward.







But yes...a modern optic would undoubtedly be easier to use.

Just far less cool, and way less sexy.

The answer is simple actually.

As mentioned when my father gave me the rifle, it had an ancient Weaver of some sort on it. The scope was put on my P17, in the 60s I believe, maybe even in the 50s.

I wanted to replace it so I purchased the Rainguard Elite 4200, 1. Because the scope was highly recommended by a friend and 2. I was able to use the existing Scope mounts.

When I want to upgrade the scope with a Huskemaw because of the size of the front lens, I was told by my gunsmith that I would have to tap new holes to accommodate the proper and Higher scope mounts. The size of the front lens and the type of mounts I needed, simply would not fit into the existing holes.

I did not want to tamper with the barrel, so I decided to leave it as is with the 4200 and original scope mounts.

Ok, back from the gunsmith with the 5200,
just want to check on the hole spacing for the sight blocks.

Front is ~0.543" and rear is ~0.835" center to center on screws.
Does that sound right for standard unertl style scopes block/bases?

Yep, that is pretty much the spacing on my factory drilled and tapped 1950 Winchester 52B .

Did the glass clean up?

Yes

Looks very good

Looks like it came together ok. Kinda surprised it was d/t'ed so far forward on the barrel, but it is what it is. Looks to be spaced more than the standard 7.2" apart, or do my eyes deceive me? (7.2" gives 1/4MOA clicks on the turrets, and was a standard protocol back in the day. Farther spacing = less than 1/4MOA clicks obviously.)

I'll guess that the spottiness of the lens was external dirt? Really the only major stumbling block with these old Targetspot/Unertl/Fecker scope lenses is sometimes they'll delaminate which then requires the services of a pro scope doctor. External and internal cleaning is certainly within the province of Happy Harry Gun Owner - unscrew both ends, clean, screw back together. These things weren't sealed and nitrogen filled. Ditto crosshair replacement - a delicate operation for sure, and best done under magnification, and .0005", .001", etc. tungsten wire is cheaply available. Try doing that with a new "state of the art" scope.

When using the scope, keep the turrets turning freely by judicious oiling. If they're tight/sluggish turning now, then a spot of Kroil to loosen them up. Wise to pull the mounts off the scope and give them a good cleaning, especially the little plunger and its spring that keeps the scope tube tensioned against the windage and elevation knobs. When shooting with it a good idea is to lightly grease or oil the scope tube in the areas where it rubs against the support points.

I see it doesn't employ a recoil spring, so don't forget to pull it back into battery after each shot. It won't move much under recoil from a .22, but it'll move nonetheless. Savvy centerfire shooters removed that spring because the slam-bam effect of it putting the scope back into battery after the shot was the chief source of the delicate crosshairs breaking. Rimfire guys don't have that issue and they're the guys who benefit from having the recoil spring in place.

Sorry to be so long winded.

Your Kroil recommendation is a good one.

Reason I suggested dismantling and cleaning the plunger and spring is if it endured a half-century+ of never having been serviced, resulting in the plunger being sluggish it won't bear evenly/consistently against the turrets, making adjustment an unpredictable thing and allowing the scope to rattle minutely in the mount. Not good for the nth degree of accuracy.

I have cleaned it up already.

I do want to find a spring for it, but I'm waiting for sight blocks first from Steve Earle.