Fixed 4x rifle scopes

Status
Not open for further replies.
peacemaker45

peacemaker45

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
1,327
Location
Alger, OH
I've always been partial to the lightness and simplicity of fixed power scopes, but until now, I've never had occasion to buy a new one. However, the old Redfield Widefield on my new (to me) rifle is in dire need of replacement.

Looking around at the state of the market, it looks like there are two basic choices. The Weaver K4x38, and the Leupold FX-II 4x33.

Any opinions on these two? Is the Leupold enough better that it warrants twice the price?

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
 
What is the rifle, and what will it be used for??

rc

Sent from my Home PC using my Fingers.
 
Remington 700 BDL, .30-06. It's a general purpose hunting rifle. I can't use a rifle here in Ohio for anything bigger than coyotes or ground hogs, so this will be for out of state hunting. My plans now are for whitetail in West Virginia, elk in Colorado, and black bear, probably in Montana over the next couple of years. Lord willing and the creek don't rise, of course.

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2
 
I had a Weaver K6 on my .223 bolt for a while. It was a good scope. I wish I could say it was great, but I can't. The bottom left quadrant gave way to a slight blur, which I just lived with since the center was quite clear. Maybe it was something Weaver might have corrected or replaced. I never checked on that though.
 
I'd go Weaver. I like Leupold fine, but I would not bet it is any better than the Weaver.
Bought a new 4X28 Weaver last year for a 22. Would have no problem putting it on a centerfire.
I'm impressed with the new Japanese ATK/Weaver scopes.
 
I put a couple of old Weaver K4s on a Winchester 88 and a Remington 740 I got ahold of recently. Both rifles are 50s vintage and so are the scopes, I thought it was fitting that the whole rifle be "period correct".

The older Weaver K4s and K6s can be found in plenty on ebay. They really hold their value well though......you won't find one for $25.

I also like them because unlike many new scopes, it is simple to disassemble and clean the lenses.
 
I have no doubt the Zeiss is an excellent scope, but $380? I'm seeing the Weaver new on ebay for $150. Could be an issue for the OP'er.
 
The older Weaver K4s and K6s - I also like them because unlike many new scopes, it is simple to disassemble and clean the lenses.
Click to expand...
Well, that would be a huge mistake!!

Even the older Weaver K-series scopes were sealed, and some were even nitrogen filled by the factory.

Cleaning the lenses inside a Weaver K-Series scope is NOT a DIY project!!

rc
 
rcmodel said:
Well, that would be a huge mistake!!

Even the older Weaver K-series scopes were sealed, and some were even nitrogen filled by the factory.

Cleaning the lenses inside a Weaver K-Series scope is NOT a DIY project!!

rc
Click to expand...

Well OK :)

I did it anyway. Unaware that those older scopes were nitrogen filled. I do have nitrogen handy in my work truck and I can probably refill and reseal the scopes. The outer lenses just unscrewed, seemed easy enough to me. A couple of the lenses had grime on the inside so I doubt they were still sealed anyway. Glass is real clear now though.
 
if it's anything like my experience with 60's/70/s K models - they're getting old enough the anti-reflective coating on the inside of the lens is coming off. It gives the lens a rather dirty look, usually starting towards the outside of the lens. You'd probably notice an increase in ghosts or flares after removing it.
 
the older weavers were much for optics but to be honest either were the older leupolds compared to todays scopes. Id say opticaly between the two if talking recent production it would be a toss up. Biggest advantage to the leupold in my opinion is its a much lighter compact scope, its made in america and is covered by probably the best warantee in the buisness.
 
if it's anything like my experience with 60's/70/s K models - they're getting old enough the anti-reflective coating on the inside of the lens is coming off. It gives the lens a rather dirty look, usually starting towards the outside of the lens. You'd probably notice an increase in ghosts or flares after removing it.
Click to expand...

+1...happening on my SS K4 on my 181- Ruger Ranch Rifle.

I dont think the new Weavers are as good as the old, and my old one is going...as mentioned, i have an old stainless, and a new (~2 years old) black matte K4.

Of the two options in the OP, I'd go Leupold; but, personally, on an '06, I'd probably go with a 3-9 Burris Fullfield II.
 
My brother has picked up a couple old Weaver K-4's in good condition. We have a friend who manages a gun store and stuff like that makes its way in sometimes with older guns or things widows bring in when their husbands die. One came in with no scope caps. He sold the scope to my brother cheap, who then put on scope caps he had and mounted it on an old Marlin (JC Higgins) .22. Looks right at home and still puts lead on target.
 
For the country I hunt, a fixed 4 is all I would need. The OP mentioned elk in Colorado as a possibility, and I would sure want more magnification for that. I've not been on a CO Elk hunt, but I have visited the state often, and I would expect 250-350 yard shots would be common.
 
I expected that in Colorado too.
Until I lived there for a while.

I developed a load and put a 6x scope on my 30-06.
Then sighted it in for 250 yards.

So the first morning, one walked by 25 yards away, and all I could see in the 6x scope was hair!!

IMO: Not enough power and a wide field of view is ALWAYS better then too much power and not enough field of view.

I have killed enough Kansas coyotes on the plains at 400 yards with a 4X to know an elk that far away would be no problem with a 3x if you can shoot your rifle & load.

350 yards divided by 3x is 116 yards.

That's open sight range.

350 yards divided by 4x is 88 yards .
A young man can throw rocks that far and probably hit something as big as an elk.

rc
 
Last edited:
That makes sense, but my eyes are unfortunately a different story. I am 20/40 left ( corrects to 20/20), but 20/400 right. I am so left eye dominant that my depth perception and distance judging is awful. I get snickers in camp for having a 5x15x50 on my .308, as well as scopes on half my levers. Frankly it is the best way for me to avoid shooting something I would hate to string up.

For hitting, I can get by with a low power fixed. For judging game, I need more glass. Binocs are fine, but when 8-10 deer are feeding, it often takes awhile to pick the shooter, and then act quickly when he finally gives an unobstructed shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top