Anybody have experience wIth one? I got this one from a pawn shop acquisition of a Remington 721 .30-06 a few months back. They're proud of them for some reason. A 4X is going from $120-$200. Mine has a gloss finish and is super clear. What do y'all know about them?

The Bal- series scopes were originally the B&L line that required mounts with windage and elevation. The Bal- B series are basically the same as the Bal- A series scopes with internal adjustments. I have a few of the Bal- B series scopes in 3-9x and 6x, all of] them with fine cross-hair reticles. The reticles are so fine that I find it hard to see them against a dark background, so they are mounted on rifles that I only shoot at the range or hunt with during times of full daylight. I wouldn't pay $120 to $200 for any of those old Bal- series scopes even if they were NIB unless I was a collector..

Let me ask this, would you prefer a Weaver K series to these Balfors? The reason I ask is because I also have a Weaver K-6 I can mount on the rifle. The K-6 was made in 1979. The Balfor I believe was made in the 90s. I doubt the Weaver has much in the way of lens coatings because they were just starting to coat lenses then. I'm sure the Balfor has some coatings if I'm correct about when it was made. The Weaver would be more period correct and I like such aesthetics but I like function too. What you think which is best and do you know if I'm correct about the coatings and manufacturing time period of my Balfor?

BTW, this Balfor has tapered cross hairs.They're relatively thick close at the edge but they taper down to very thin in the middle where the windage and elevaton hairs converge. I almost think I like them better than a Duplex.

The Balfor scope was made in the 60’s. They still hold there own to many currently produced bargain priced scopes.

I don't know when B&L stopped making the Bal- series of scopes, but I think that it was before the 1990s. You could probably find that information on the 'net.

I believe that the B&L scopes made prior to when B&L's scope business was sold to Bushnell always had better optics than any comparable period Weaver because B&L made many different high quality optical devices that were held in high regard. Pre-Bushnell B&L scopes were generally considered to be a tier above the comparable Redfields and Weavers back in their day.

I find the tapered cross-hair reticle hard to see in low light, particularly against a dark background. The TCH reticle is the standard reticle that B&L used in the Bal-Var 2.5-5x and 2.5-8x scopes in both the internally and externally adjusted styles and in their big, "stove pipe" target/varmint scopes. While they don't work particularly well for me, they might work just fine for you.

I'm pretty sure the fixed B&L scopes were called Balfor, and the variables were Balvar.

Thirty plus years ago I bought a pristine M722 in 257R with a Balvar A and the B&L external adjustable mounts. Kuharsky also made external adjustable mounts for those type of scopes. Still have that rifle. The widow of the owner of that rifle told me he never hunted with the rifle and it was his backup gun that was shot every few years to make sure it was still sighted in.and then put away.

Year after I got it I hunted one afternoon with the rifle and killed an elk and have never hunted with it since. So I've decided the rifle and scope's success rate is 100%.........

Now that I think of it, I believe there was another scope with a slightly different name also, just can't remember it anymore.......

The fix power/magnification Bal- series scopes had names related to the specific magnification;

Baltur = 2.5x
Balfor = 4x
Balsix = 6x
Baleight =8x

I've only seen the Baleight in the A series that were externally adjusted. In the early 1990's I hooked up with the late Fred Warren from Cleveland, OH, who was widely regarded as the leading expert on B&L scopes and mounts at that time. Fred recommended that I should buy all of the Bal- series scopes that I could find at a fair price and send them to B&L's repair center in Compton, CA, for free, expect for shipping, servicing or replacement, since they had an unqualified lifetime warranty. That all came to an abrupt end when the Rodney King riots burned out the B&L facility, destroying all of the repair parts, and Bushnell consolidated repair/replacement activities in Overland Park, KS.

I have 5 of them on working rifles, not safe queens, reliable in the extreme, respond to adjustments like steel Weavers, seem to be recoil proof, although none are mounted on anything thumpier than a 9.3x62.

That's it! Thanks for reminding me 260.

I did not know that facility was burned down. Jeez......

Thanks a lot you guys. Y'all have all helped me get better acquainted with this scope. Just looking through it, It looks very bright and clear. I'm not looking to buy another one but was just curious about this one. I remember back in the 60s B&L products were highly thought of. As far as what I said about it being made in the 90s, that was because I read it on the internet when I first got the scope. But I just now re-researched it and that was the Bushnells made after they acquired B&L. I was thinking it looked a lot older than that. Being that it was probably made sometime in the 60s it probably has no coatings on the lenses. That, plus the fact that the cross hairs are very thin in the center, it's probably not real conducive to night time hog hunting. But that rifle-scope combo is a real classic. I checked and the rifle, a Remington 721 in .30-06, was manufactured in August of 1950. When I first saw it in the pawn shop I didn't pick up on what it was AND It was pretty ratty looking. The stock didn't have much finish left on it and the metal was pretty spotty. So I didn't look into it becuse it wasn't interesting to me. That is until I got home and started reading about another Remington which happened to be a 722. Then it hit me like a ton of bricks when I realized what the rifle in the pawn shop was. I immediately got in the car and went back to the pawn shop, but they were closed already due to reduced hours because of the Covin. That was on a Saturday so they were closed until Monday. Monday morning I made a beeline to the pawn shop when they opened and immediately put that baby on layaway. It didn't stay laid away long and the first extra money I came into I went back and bailed that baby out.

I sanded off all the finish on the stock and put on 3 or 4 coats of BLO and it looks pretty good. I didn't take any dents out or sand too much. I wanted it to look its age. I rubbed the little bit of rust on it off with 4 O Steel wool and WD-40 and then cleaned it with alcohol and touched it up with some of my favorite cold stuff, Oxpho Blue. Now it looks like the classic it is.

I had planned on changing the scope out with an old K-6 I have but after reading what y'all said here I think it's better left as it is. Anyway, I think I've got me a real functional classic and will hunt somethng with it this fall. Thanks for your help>

I have a couple of the Balvar-8's and other than the FFP reticle it will hold its own today. I have mine mounted in a Leupold mount and rings, windage in the rings and shimmed for elevation.

Shot this rifle in an Egg shoot, didn't wind but made it to the final round, the left the shoot and killed a coyote with it. Sept 2019.

I have the 2x8 stuck on 8, and it has seen a lot of good service. I am sure they will replace it with something if I send it in....like getting rid of an old friend.