I like vintage rifles and hunting with them. I have modern rifles with modern scopes but I like vintage scopes on vintage rifles

Last year I pulled a non-resident moose tag for Maine and I used a pre-war Rem. M30 in .35 Whelen with a steel Weaver 3x9. When inquiring then about scopes to use it was advised to me to use a modern scope on a once in a lifetime hunt. I was a bit late to change and luckily all worked out with that scope but it was rather dark when a I took the shot at 5:15.

I don't think that situation will present itself again (although I have a friend here in NY who pulled 2 Maine Moose tags in 5 years) but I am looking for a brighter scope to use on this gun and I looked around in my cabinet and came out with a Lyman All American 4X, alloy tube and Permacenter reticle.

It has the +6" tube length I need but I am curious as to how tough these scopes are. Optics and brightness aside, are they as tough a modern 4X by Leupold? Waterproof, hold zero?


thanks,

Rob

Scopes evolved. Fact of life.

If your concerned then get a new scope.

I looked where I knew there was a Lyman 4x on a rifle and it had Perma center crosshairs however it's old looking. All of the other scopes are Leupold, Zeiss Conquests, Kahles, etc.

Here are some rifles at the range. No 4x Lymans there!

I shot my first buck in 1953 with my 6X Lyman Wolverine scope. It's up on top of a cabinet now with another old scope.

Nothing wrong with the later Permacenter Lymans, especially the 4X. I like them. Best solution would be to put a new Leupold gloss 4X or 6X on top. Both look good on an older rifle, plus you'll have the advantage of modern glass and coatings.

I still have a few Lymans around, though. Never had any issues. They were excellent scopes for their time.
Bob

have had a number of lyman scopes never had any trouble with any of them.

Ed

Not all the answers you are getting are correct. While scopes have certainly evolved, in some cases, they are less robust, and less able to take a beating.

Generally, the more features a scope has, the more potential for a problem. The addition of variable power, lighted reticles, multiple aimpoints, trajectory compensation, and other features make some scopes "less tough" than a 1960's fixed power crosshair scope.

You mentioned "it was rather dark"...did the scope have something to do with that? Much is made of the fake argument about larger lenses "gathering more light". The pupil of your eye can only allow so much light in. An objective of 38mm, combined with quality glass throughout, allows as much light to reach your pupil is that in a 1000mm telescope lens. It's just a matter of fact. If you have a vintage scope in very good condition, with perfectly clear lenses (no delamination, etc), you will see about 98% as well as you would with the newest Leupold. Yes, the Leupold "tests out" at a much higher rate of clarity and brilliance, but that is on sophisticated light transfereance and image evaluation machinery, not on the human eye.

Your Lyman AA 4X does not have a constantly centered reticle, so mount it and make sure you can achieve aimpoint adjustment without putting in the crosshair too close to the edge of view.

My experience in collecting vintage scopes for 35 years is that Weaver had the most durable scopes in the 1950's to 60's, Lyman was a close second, and Redfield was a distant third. Bushnell had the brightest/clearest of all in the 50's, but was plagued by other problems. Much has changed since then, but if you are using a vintage scope that is clear and bright, it will work "pretty much? as well as a newer scope.

Thank you Buck,

The Lyman I am considering is the Permacenter version and is a fixed 4X. One of the things i forgot to mention is that I need a 6" main tube to accomodate the mounts on this action, a lot of new scopes just don't give that kind of mounting length. The steel Weaver 3x9 I ended up using had it and so does the Lyman.

I got my shot at the moose at about 5:15. looking back on it in my mind I tend to think it was rather dark through that scope but the fact is we were on a trail with trees on either side so we were in shadows. I had time to make a good shot (went about 15yds and laid down) so maybe it's more in my mind that the scope was the culprit when in truth it performed as it should.

I may just keep the Weaver on there....

I have a Lyman, it's plenty clear. Looks well made. It's on the shelf too. It's a 10x Permacenter

I have been collecting scopes for 25 years [since I turned 40 and lost my 1 moa open sight vision].

3 days ago I bought an old 1949 rifle with Lyman All American 4X on it.

I will be taking that off and replacing with a newer scope; Leupold, Sightron, Vortex, USO, Nightforce, USO, IOR, etc.

The Lyman will go on the bone pile with the old take off scopes; B&L, Weaver, Nikon, Simmons, Burris, Unertl, Tasco, etc.

Nothin had a rep for toughness like the B&L externally adjustable scopes. Perma-centered too, obviously. Can be had online, as can mounts for older stuff. These were top of the line in their day. These puppies are all tube!

Personally, though, I don't know if I want to trust any really old scope for an important hunt. Makes more sense for casual meat hunting and such. A set of Weaver mounts would let you swap scopes with a minimum of fuss so you can go back to the antique-y one after the hunt. I've got a bunch of old ones that came on used rifles, but I don't use them.