PECAR thats a name we dont hear now, i bolted one on to my old ruger 35 year ago and honestly i never ever had to adjust, never had the turret caps off and only changed to a meopta 2 year ago to do a bit more paper punching as the x hairs on the pecar were too thick and blanked the bull out at 100 and that when i found out the old m77 had had its days for accuracy,
Optics Guarantees?
- Thread starter Monkey Spanker
- Start date
I bought swaro 8x56 about 35 year ago or more and a couple of year ago the rubber eye piece perished so went to local swaro dealer ( not who I originally bought off) and asked them to send back under warranty. They said only 10 year I said lifetime. They said even when I bought them lifetime only meant 30 year I said I’m not dead yet. They said I’ll be charged to fix eye rubber and why not get them serviced / cleaned while away for a couple hundred £. I said no just fix eye rubber under guarantee they said ok we’ll send them but they’ll charge you. Now these bins have had a hell of a life in 35 year I never used to have a bipod fitted and used to stand the swaros up in the heather and shoot off the eye piece end caps so you can imagine the state they were in. So off they went and came back like this. No charge completely refurbished new eye piece , carcass , lenses polished even a new strap so if that’s not looking after customers what is
Attachments
Sambarrmann
Active Member
"You’ll get name for yourself if you keep up the rail against modern scope mechanics!
K"
So be it, Klenchblaize. The modern system really is a disgrace, esp. when used on hard-kicking calibres against dangerous game. This is not only because of the fragile mechanics but because it has to have restrictive field stops to catch reflections from crooked erector tubes when scopes are badly installed and require clicking to the edge. Those field stops not only cut field of view (Leupold's 4x FoV dropped from 35 feet to 30 when they changed over in 1964) but increase tunnel vision. That tunnel vision may not matter at high magnifications but in low-power scopes used for DG it represents real country covered up where danger from non-target buffalo or lions could lurk.
Image-movement was patented in 1956 but discerning makers like Leupold, Bausch & Lomb and Unertl, plus all the European makers, stayed away from it as long as they could. I don't think Pecar ever used it even up to 2006. Their Champion line centred it simply by putting a field stop around the FFP reticle. This reduced the FoV but otherwise it was a strong, old-fashioned, reticle-movement scope. This worked OK in fixed powers but I think it would have brought massive tunnel vision at low powers if used in a variable. Has anyone ever seen a Pecar Champion variable?
Yes, ruger 243, Pecars had an excellent reputation for toughness here (in the colonies
) and are still sought by professional shooters. They also sold replacement reticles, so you could have changed to a better kind (and might still do). That said, I've seen how they were held under the turrets and the solidity is nothing compared with the dovetail Nickel used to hold theirs in the single-turret scopes.
K"
So be it, Klenchblaize. The modern system really is a disgrace, esp. when used on hard-kicking calibres against dangerous game. This is not only because of the fragile mechanics but because it has to have restrictive field stops to catch reflections from crooked erector tubes when scopes are badly installed and require clicking to the edge. Those field stops not only cut field of view (Leupold's 4x FoV dropped from 35 feet to 30 when they changed over in 1964) but increase tunnel vision. That tunnel vision may not matter at high magnifications but in low-power scopes used for DG it represents real country covered up where danger from non-target buffalo or lions could lurk.
Image-movement was patented in 1956 but discerning makers like Leupold, Bausch & Lomb and Unertl, plus all the European makers, stayed away from it as long as they could. I don't think Pecar ever used it even up to 2006. Their Champion line centred it simply by putting a field stop around the FFP reticle. This reduced the FoV but otherwise it was a strong, old-fashioned, reticle-movement scope. This worked OK in fixed powers but I think it would have brought massive tunnel vision at low powers if used in a variable. Has anyone ever seen a Pecar Champion variable?
Yes, ruger 243, Pecars had an excellent reputation for toughness here (in the colonies
) and are still sought by professional shooters. They also sold replacement reticles, so you could have changed to a better kind (and might still do). That said, I've seen how they were held under the turrets and the solidity is nothing compared with the dovetail Nickel used to hold theirs in the single-turret scopes.
Last edited:
You clearly know your onions."You’ll get name for yourself if you keep up the rail against modern scope mechanics!
K"
So be it, Klenchblaize. The modern system really is a disgrace, esp. when used on hard-kicking calibres against dangerous game. This is not only because of the fragile mechanics but because it has to have restrictive field stops to catch reflections from crooked erector tubes when scopes are badly installed and require clicking to the edge. Those field stops not only cut field of view (Leupold's 4x FoV dropped from 35 feet to 30 when they changed over in 1964) but increase tunnel vision. That tunnel vision may not matter at high magnifications but in low-power scopes used for DG it represents real country covered up where danger from non-target buffalo or lions could lurk.
Image-movement was patented in 1956 but discerning makers like Leupold, Bausch & Lomb and Unertl, plus all the European makers, stayed away from it as long as they could. I don't think Pecar ever used it even up to 2006. Their Champion line centred it simply by putting a field stop around the FFP reticle. This reduced the FoV but otherwise it was a strong, old-fashioned, reticle-movement scope. This worked OK in fixed powers but I think it would have brought massive tunnel vision at low powers if used in a variable. Has anyone ever seen a Pecar Champion variable?
Yes, ruger 243, Pecars had an excellent reputation for toughness here (in the colonies
I've always hated the Pecar scope and probably because the one I tried had the crosshairs significantly off centre but I guess this is why most mounts/rings of the period have the ability to adjust windage.
It’s ironic but to this day I still first ensure a new scope’s windage adjustment is centred (50 clicks left & 50 right or whatever it is) and use the Conetrol rear ring cone screws to get the bullet at least 1” away from my aiming mark. Thus never requiring more than 5 clicks left or right to be bang-on.
K
You must of had a different model to me as x hairs stayed centre on mine
Attachments
Sambarrmann
Active Member
Well, I've learnt something here, guys. Ruger 243's variable is not branded 'Champion' but the dot in the circle on the turret suggests it does have a constantly centred reticle. Does tunnel vision increase as the power is turned down? If not, I would be inclined to think they may have gone back to the Kollmorgen/Weaver method of doing it. Trouble with that would be that the reticle may not be as easy to change over, as it would then need to be part of the erector tube. On the other hand, that little dot-circle symbol may be on the turret in case of change-overs, indicating the system is the same as with the fixed powers. How it could work then puzzles me, though, because the reticles in the fixed powers were always specific to the magnification, which would be printed on the turret, too.
Yes, Klenchblaize, having the reticle go out of centre was the bane of the old scopes, which is why for many years I would have them mounted by a competent gunsmith who would mill bases etc to see things lined up. At home I use adjustable mounts for windage and shims to fix elevation.
That all sounds like a PITA but is justified for the reasons I mentioned earlier. There is, however, a new school of thought that says even image-movement scopes should be mounted straight for optical and mechanical reasons and that great care should be taken not to bend the damned things. If they are right, then what is the point of constantly centred reticles in low-powered scopes?
Certainly an out-of-centre reticle quickly becomes apparent in high-powered scopes, but I find in scopes up to about 4x you can be two or three inches off centre at 100 yards without noticing it - and this is the same margin of error that gurus like William Hambly-Clark Jr allow in their modern, image-movement scopes.
He uses the roll-over technique to ensure his scopes' reticles are centred (set the tube in V blocks and adjust the knobs until the reticle stays on a target when rolled around through 360 degrees). My gunsmith mate uses that method even with my reticle movement scopes - I just eyeball them, so in this context, find they are quicker to adjust than the new ones
The tendency of scopes to bend, I think, comes from the move from steel to alloy tubes while sticking with the one-inch tube size. The old European scopes used to be 26mm when steel but something fatter in the dural version. The latter usually had rails, too, not only for mounting but to stiffen the tube. The old, dural Zeiss/Hensoldt and Nickel 1.5-6x variables had 30mm tubes 50 years ago, decades before extensive adjustments for long shots became the rage.
The easiest answer I can think of to all these problems is Burris Signature scope rings, which have Nylon-type inserts that swivel like ball joints until you tighten the screws. In the event the scope does not line up, you can get eccentric inserts that work in all directions. They even prevent the scope from getting scratched.
Yes, Klenchblaize, having the reticle go out of centre was the bane of the old scopes, which is why for many years I would have them mounted by a competent gunsmith who would mill bases etc to see things lined up. At home I use adjustable mounts for windage and shims to fix elevation.
That all sounds like a PITA but is justified for the reasons I mentioned earlier. There is, however, a new school of thought that says even image-movement scopes should be mounted straight for optical and mechanical reasons and that great care should be taken not to bend the damned things. If they are right, then what is the point of constantly centred reticles in low-powered scopes?
Certainly an out-of-centre reticle quickly becomes apparent in high-powered scopes, but I find in scopes up to about 4x you can be two or three inches off centre at 100 yards without noticing it - and this is the same margin of error that gurus like William Hambly-Clark Jr allow in their modern, image-movement scopes.
He uses the roll-over technique to ensure his scopes' reticles are centred (set the tube in V blocks and adjust the knobs until the reticle stays on a target when rolled around through 360 degrees). My gunsmith mate uses that method even with my reticle movement scopes - I just eyeball them, so in this context, find they are quicker to adjust than the new ones
The tendency of scopes to bend, I think, comes from the move from steel to alloy tubes while sticking with the one-inch tube size. The old European scopes used to be 26mm when steel but something fatter in the dural version. The latter usually had rails, too, not only for mounting but to stiffen the tube. The old, dural Zeiss/Hensoldt and Nickel 1.5-6x variables had 30mm tubes 50 years ago, decades before extensive adjustments for long shots became the rage.
The easiest answer I can think of to all these problems is Burris Signature scope rings, which have Nylon-type inserts that swivel like ball joints until you tighten the screws. In the event the scope does not line up, you can get eccentric inserts that work in all directions. They even prevent the scope from getting scratched.
Similar threads
