Unertl Scope Battery Reset

Hi all,

With the main recoil spring being removed from USMC Unertl 03A1's, obviously the scope has to be pulled back into the battery position after each shot. I have read that Marines came up with various methods achieve this, (either manually by hand or automatically through using the recoil of the rifle I do not know).

Although, in any period picture I have seen of the rifle and scope, there are no indications of a device to do this. Doe's anyone have any pictures showing examples that could help with my research?






Thanks,

Paul.

The purpose of the recoil absorber was to return the scope to its normal position after the discharge of a shot. In the mid 30's Townsend Whelen wrote a small book on telescopic sights. In his opinion the recoil springs were only appropriate on small bore rifles or relatively heavy rifles shooting milder center fire cartridges like the the .25-20. His reasoning was that the force of the spring propelling the scope tended to bang up the mounts (when used with heavier cartridges). When the USMC ordered their Unertl scopes in WW2 they specified that the recoli/return springs be omitted. Some sources have speculated that this had something do with a desire to prevent sand "scoring the tube". Possibly but I think the people who were behind the use of the Unertl may have been more influenced by the opinion of Col. Whelen.

There a number of pictures of this rifle in use in various references. Off the top of my head i don't recall any with any sort of improvised recoil absorber.

Regards,
Jim

I have read the sand reason , and I've also read that with the 30-06's recoil , the scope would stay in place , compressing the spring while the rifle moved back , then would snap the scope back into the shooter's head. Also , the bolts on these guns were not bent ala 1903A4 . It was no problem firing the shot , working the bolt , then pulling the scope back over the bolt handle. It was also easier to set the safety if wanted . I think a combination of all these reasons lead to the leaving out of the spring.
And yes , they were pulled back by hand . They rode on a rail to prevent rotation and were just pulled back till they hit the stop .
Chris

Does anyone know of the Unertl being used in combat in WW2, Korea or Nam with any other rifle?

Didn't somebody put one on a fifty cal?

Carlos did but one on Ma Duce. He also used one in his famous thru the PU scope shot of the Cobra. Rifle was M70 Winchester. Unlike this US rifle, his had a sporter stock.

Cheers for the replies so far guys, all interesting.

I too have read about the sand theory, but it's more plausible that the spring would have caused issues during recoil so was omitted.

With the scope having to be pulled back into battery, I'd imagine the time to get in a position ready to fire again is a fair amount more protracted than with a hard mounted scope?





Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sniper1944

With the scope having to be pulled back into battery, I'd imagine the time to get in a position ready to fire again is a fair amount more protracted than with a hard mounted scope?

---

For a combat sniping rifle a compact scope in a rigid but quick detachable mount is a much better idea than a two foot long target scope.
It will be interesting to see how the new crop of Chinertls does at this years Vintage Sniper Match. Last year the much maligned M1903A4 (or clones thereof) took most of the honors.

Regards,
Jim

Mines on a S42/G K98 And it returns right back to battery. Rarely does it need manually moved with milsurp ammo.

Unertl Scope Usage
Having used the Unertl target scope extensively on both a Winchester M&) 300 H&H Bull gun and a M70 Heavy barreled 30-06 I shall venture the following information.
a. The eye relief on the scope is very short. If the scope were rigidly mounted, during recoil the rifle and scope would recoil enough to hit the shooter in the eye. Hence the scope is free to move so that the rifle will recoil under the scope and the scope will not hit the shooter in the eye.
b. The Unert l is not a rugged scope. Heavy recoil from the hotter than hell target loads (180 gr and 200 gr BTM bullets, max load of IMR4350 or 4831) would impart severe shock onto the scope. Hence the scope was allowed to slide in the mounts under recoil. The purpose of the spring was to serve as a method of applying successively increasing shock absorbing restraint to gradually buffer the scope motion. The problem is that the spring was too effective. At the end of recoil, the spring would be compressed, the rifle would have recoiled towards the shooter’s eye , and the spring would drive the scope back to battery and possibly hit the shooter in the eye. For small bore work this was no problem, but for big bore work it was.
Resetting to Battery without the spring.
This is the method that I used. Both M70’s had low mounted bolt handles so clearance was not a problem, I believe that on some M1903’s the bolt handle was ground to provide clearance. Upon firing, the rifle, with the spring disconnected or removed, would recoil and the scope would be restrained by the stop ring.
After each shot I pulled the scope back to battery with a right rotational pull and then depressed the scope against the mount plunger to insure that the plunger had not stuck. The technique tended to make each shot with the scope in a consistent position. Even though the mounts were very precise, there was always some “slack” in the adjustments. The adjustment knobs were on the top ad side and were to move the tube, ergo the LOS, in windage and elevation. At a 45 degree angle to the bottom and side of the adjustment knobs, the spring loaded plunger was designed to keep constant pressure on the tube to keep it against the adjustment spools. With only slight adjustments or motion the plunger might “stick” if not exercised.
For small adjustments, most shooters “holdover or under”. Most used scorebooks that had grids marked in MOA so if one held the edge of the X ring or the ten ring, the light of sight moved and the line of bore moved.
Just some thoughts from and old Unertl user.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGaynor

For a combat sniping rifle a compact scope in a rigid but quick detachable mount is a much better idea than a two foot long target scope.
It will be interesting to see how the new crop of Chinertls does at this years Vintage Sniper Match. Last year the much maligned M1903A4 (or clones thereof) took most of the honors.

Regards,
Jim

---

Yea, using this scope in combat must have been a real challenge, especially in PTO. Amazing that Carlos H. was still using them with success in Nam, but the Marines have always made the best of what they had. Personnally, the PU's he took on, were probably a better rifle for the environment in which they were used IMO. They were consistent with what Jim says, compact, rigid and fairly quick to detach. The basic Mosin comes with the only tool you would need, a combo tool with a screw driver and firing pin protrusion tool. Time to remove, about 10-15 seconds. Remember, Carlos said on video tape that after I shot him and saw the bullet had gone thru the scope and into his eye, "it occurred to me that I was in his crosshair and had I not been a spit second faster on the trigger, I would not be here"(not exact quote but just of it).

There was a link to a couple groups shot with one of these Repro Unertls, shot by a guy named Mike something in OK. He is gonna use the rifle in the Vintage Sniper matches. They were sub one inch at 100 yds. I wonder if it is the same Mike that was one of the two team members who won overall last time? In that match they used what he stated to be a stock Gibbs A4, with original Gibbs installed barrel and stock and an original Weaver, not Gibbs, scope. I should have one of these repro Unertls any time. Shipped Monday at 5PM.

Looking at a bunch of the pictures from the big VS Match, there were dozens of folks using replicas or real 1903A1 USMC snipers with Unertls. None placed high. CMP had already allowed other Unertls refitted to be 8X or commercial 8X to be used. I could see a ton of them in the pictures. I thought that they would shine and was surprised a 2.5X weaver on what should be a lesser rifle, Gibbs A4, would come out on top.

On resetting the scope, that can be done very quickly. The problem is forgetting. Having used one quite a bit, I can tell you I have forgotten to reset it about 10-15% of the time. It does not make a huge difference in POI.

These repro Unertls, are they USMC marked and numbered? Who's selling them?

I knew I had it somewhere around, but took me some time to find it. See the attached picture ;)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...50bmg914-1.jpg
(Doug, if you're reading this: the upload screen didn't work, so I wasn't able to upload it. If you want this image to stay here, please make a copy of it).

That looks like a 2 inch Unertl, and the recoil spring is still in operation. I suppose that the Ma Duce would require that as it probably had a lot of recoil.
I believe the rifle that Hathcock used was a M70 Winchester in 30-06 using M72 ammo - probably NM grade. Must have been a chore keeping those Unertl mounts operational in the Nam climate.
I had a friend who served in Nam with a USMC radio operatioin and repair outfit. Said that a Marine came in with an M16 and asked if he could use the sonic cleaner. The cleaner removed all of the finish, and my friend said that you could watch the rust form.

A sniper in Korea with a Win.70/Unertl with spring engaged, anybody recognize him? Another M2/Unertl in Korea. Notice the angle of the scope, target must be way out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

These repro Unertls, are they USMC marked and numbered? Who's selling them?

---

Ordered mine from SWAFA. Their origin is Leatherwood. They are marked USMC but also Wm Malcolm or something like that, making ID as replica pretty easy.

A Ma Duce on a tripod and sandbaged does not move that much , so the scope would remain in place far more than on a rifle .
Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

These repro Unertls, are they USMC marked and numbered? Who's selling them?

---

They are being imported by Leatherwood-HiLux and offered under their "Wm. Malcolm" line of antique scopes. They are being sold through Leatherwoods Dealer network. To the best of my knowledge they are marked Wm. malcolm with their own s/n series.

Regards,
Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Promo

I knew I had it somewhere around, but took me some time to find it. See the attached picture ;)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...50bmg914-1.jpg
(Doug, if you're reading this: the upload screen didn't work, so I wasn't able to upload it. If you want this image to stay here, please make a copy of it).

---

Hi Promo,
That's a really a cool photo. Doug bought a program and pays people to run it so that any image as from photobucket ect will be copied and remain on the site even if you delete them from the second party account. It's very difficult to keep things together when reading older threads that may have info your search came up with, but when you find it the instructive photos are just a red 'X' . Doug bought the software a good while back, so most things in the past year are saved here on milsurps.com

As far as uploading directly your photo may be too large, or you just got one step out of sequence. It's easy to get out of sequence if you haven't used it in a while.
Here are detailed instructions you might want to go over, There's also a step by step instructional pdf at the bottom that you can print out after you open it so you can have it beside your computer if needed.
Here's the link - if you're still having problems after trying this, please let me know and I'll see if I can find what's wrong.

Best regards,
~ Harlan

How do I upload pictures to my posts for storage on milsurps.com?

The only thing I have to offer is that when your working with under 1/2 MOA always push the scope back into battery with your left index finger and don't pull it back.

A few years ago I started using the recoil spring on rifles from 32-40 up to 30-06 and that is working well for me.


Admittedly the majority of my shooting is with lead bullet rifles at 100-200 yards.

Paul

I agree with and will expand upon Cosine26's comments:

The U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit (USAMU) formerly used bolt action rifles for long range competition. U.S. NRA rules allow the use of scopes in some events and the USAMU used barrel mounted scopes such as Unertl and Lyman Super Targetspot.

For use with a centerfire rifle, the USAMU manual states the recoil spring should be removed in order to: (1) prevent the scope from being driven by recoil into the shooter's eye due to the short eye relief and (2) prevent recoil induced damage to the scope.

The manual goes on to state the scope must be returned to battery after each shot by pulling it to the rear until it reaches the stop and giving it a slight twist (always in the same direction).

For long range USAMU used calibers such as the .30-.338 and .300 Winchester magnum. Bullets from 190 to 220 grains and maximum powder charges so recoil was significant.

I have seen a couple of references to rubber bands being used as a return to battery device. This would seem to counteract the positive effects of removing the spring.

Regards

Jim

I got the repro Unertl. It is not a faithful reproduction. It is several inches shorter. The objective tube is slightly smaller. The blue is pretty poor. The rings are more narrow and do not seem as substantial. Optics are pretty darn good. Range test pending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike radford

I got the repro Unertl. It is not a faithful reproduction. It is several inches shorter. The objective tube is slightly smaller. The blue is pretty poor. The rings are more narrow and do not seem as substantial. Optics are pretty darn good. Range test pending.

---

Several inches shorter?!?....Not doubting you Mike but someone in another forum also said the other day that their's appeared smaller than expected. They just chalked it off to the 3/4" main tube which is of course correct. The actual model the USMC selected was the 1.25" Combination Target.

I tthink a lot of us would like to see some pics next to the real thing or on a rifle when you get a chance.

Regards,

Jim

Everyone,

Thanks for the information so far, very informative :bow:


I don't know if this will help, but here are some actual photos I took of a W. M. Malcolm Unertl scope that was on display at the British Shooting Show a few weeks ago:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6a734710-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...77e7df5a-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...73bdb829-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...59e90964-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...75a7b153-1.jpg

(Sorry about the quality, photos were taken with an iPhone).

The specifications page on the Hi-Lux website states that the objective aperture is 31mm diameter (1.22 inches) with an overall length of 23 inches.

From what I have read, an 8x Unertl scope should have a 1.25 inches diameter objective aperture (31.75mm) and should be 25 inches in length?

So this would mean that the W. M. Malcolm scope is 0.75mm smaller in objective aperture size, and 2 inches shorter overall?






Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JGaynor

Last year the much maligned M1903A4 (or clones thereof) took most of the honors.

Regards,
Jim

---

I can see why. I own one of the Gibbs rifles and the accuracy it is capable of is nothing short of amazing. I don't know why they're maligned, I couldn't be happier with the performance of my rifle.

Paul, the differences you cite sound about right. I did not get out a ruler. The scope was noteably shorter and I though I could see a diameter difference in the objective end. I am surprised it was only 0.03 inches and that I was able to see it. I was more concerned that the rings would not fit on my original mounting blocks, which they did.

Hope to get the time to get some pics soon Jim. Of course there is no small dot in the center of the reticule like many, or all, originals would have had. The optics were a pleasant surprise though. Nice looking scope and at about 10% of the cost of an original, lots of folks will be limited to one of these, a non-USMC Unertl, or maybe a target spot. How these replicas do in the Vintage sniper matches will be interesting.

I do not believe that the "dot" was ever incorporated in the original Unertls - at least not in those I have ever seen. I believe that they were added by "Tackhole" Lee who marketed and installed them as an after market feature.
From January 1957 American Rifleman Magazin e- ad for a Lee Dot

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...eDot0001-1.jpg

For anyone who is interested, the measurments of my original Unertl 1 1/4" are as follows:
OAL = 25"
Eyepiece = 0.850 "
Tube = 0.750"
Objective = 1.25" Mesured at the sunshade, but appears to ber same as objective lens.



FWIW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosine26

I do not believe that the "dot" was ever incorporated in the original Unertls - at least not in those I have ever seen. I believe that they were added by "Tackhole" Lee who marketed and installed them as an after market feature.
From January 1957 American Rifleman Magazin e- ad for a Lee Dot



For anyone who is interested, the measurments of my original Unertl 1 1/4" are as follows:
OAL = 25"
Eyepiece = 0.850 "
Tube = 0.750"
Objective = 1.25" Mesured at the sunshade, but appears to ber same as objective lens.



FWIW

---

The prototype USMC sniper scope was furnished with medium cross wire reticle with a diamond shaped center dot. Capt. Van Orden prepared an extensive recommendation and requisition for an additional 20 Unertl Scopes built to the exact same specifications (i.e. w/ Dot reticle) Apparently this trial purchase was not approved.
However the USMC Ordnance Bulletin No. F, 15 Dec 1943 for this scope also lists "medium size cross wire with center dot". Quite possible the reticles were changed to plain crosshairs during repairs or refurbishment. Dot reticles generally were available at least during the Mid '30's.

Regards,
Jim

I have just been re-reading Senich's USMC Scout/Sniper book, and there is a photocopy of the first page of a USMC manual on the Unertl scope. Interestingly it lists the scopes overall length as 24 inches.






Paul.

I measured my scope just before posting with both lens caps in place. As the scope eye piece focus and the objecftive sun shade are adjusted for target range and focus, the length can vary, but I do not believe as much as an inch. My scope is set up as it was on my M70 300 H&H Bull Gun with its 1000 yard setting . Over the years the length of either the objective shade or the eyepiece coud have changed. I just provided the info for information.

For Informational purposes here is Unertl information taken directly from the 1964 "Shooter's Bible" the Stoger Arms catalog

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Info0002-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Info0001-1.jpg

Unertl Reticules
After further research, I find that I was incorrect. The Unertl scopes were available with reticules as follows:
“The reticules offered are plain cross wires , fine , medium, medium coarse , and extra coarse; ditto with center dot; flat-top post with horizontal crosshair (best for offhand) a blunted post with horizontal crosshair and pointed post (picket) with cross wires. New scopes can be had with any of these cross wires.”
`Interchangeable eyepieces to raise or lower power 35% are available for all but the Small-Game scope.
“Medium-fine crosshairs are the only ones for target scopes. Unertl will even provide a crosshair and dot at no extra charge in his target scopes. As a target reticule, a enter dot is the best big game aiming point available. You can’t see the blasted dot against the bull, and you can’t see the bull behind the it!”
These are direct quotes from one of the better known rifle shots and gunsmiths of the time.
I do not ever recall seeing a dot reticule used on a target rifle. This does not mean that they did not exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cosine26

That looks like a 2 inch Unertl, and the recoil spring is still in operation. I suppose that the Ma Duce would require that as it probably had a lot of recoil.
I believe the rifle that Hathcock used was a M70 Winchester in 30-06 using M72 ammo - probably NM grade. Must have been a chore keeping those Unertl mounts operational in the Nam climate.
I had a friend who served in Nam with a USMC radio operatioin and repair outfit. Said that a Marine came in with an M16 and asked if he could use the sonic cleaner. The cleaner removed all of the finish, and my friend said that you could watch the rust form.

---

Hathcock put his scope in a hot box at night, but the Unertls were all repaired more than once. The biggest problem was broken reticules. They used spider web for replacements.

Jjt

Sorry it took me so long to get back. Currently I am trying to figure out what to do with regards to getting back to Leatherwood on my scope, or using SWAFA customer service.

I took it to the range last week and put it on a CMP M70. Optics were good. Some groups were looking pretty good, about equal to the real scope's performance. Somewhere around 20-25 shots the front scope ring walked completely off the front block. I carefully reattached it with considerable attention to detail and after about 10-15 more rounds it was obvious it was heading forward again and that was the end of it. The metal ring/washer looking part of the contact point with the block had deformed. The metal must be insufficiently hard. In any event, this was not what I was expecting. It is also possible that the reproduction blocks provided with the scope are slightly different than originals??

Since I am the only one I am aware of that has had this experience, it will be a good idea to read more reports on the scope in action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike radford

Sorry it took me so long to get back. Currently I am trying to figure out what to do with regards to getting back to Leatherwood on my scope, or using SWAFA customer service.

I took it to the range last week and put it on a CMP M70. Optics were good. Some groups were looking pretty good, about equal to the real scope's performance. Somewhere around 20-25 shots the front scope ring walked completely off the front block. I carefully reattached it with considerable attention to detail and after about 10-15 more rounds it was obvious it was heading forward again and that was the end of it. The metal ring/washer looking part of the contact point with the block had deformed. The metal must be insufficiently hard. In any event, this was not what I was expecting. It is also possible that the reproduction blocks provided with the scope are slightly different than originals??

Since I am the only one I am aware of that has had this experience, it will be a good idea to read more reports on the scope in action.

---

Mike, thanks for the range update on the Hi-Lux USMC copy. I believe yours is the first hand range report I have been able to find on the web. Without decent micrometer mounts the reproduction scope may end up having problems with repeatable adjustments or maybe just having the mounts staying attached to the blocks.

TW56

Mike, you'll probably save yourself some time by dealing directly with Leatherwood. They have an excellent costomer service department. Acouple years ago I had some issues with the William Malcomb scope on my Sharps, a stripped screw on the rear mount, IIRC. It was Thanksgiving Eve when I called about a replacement parts and according to the postmark they got them out that day, and free of charge at that. Can't ask for better service than that.

Hi-Lux service is very helpful and I feel sure that they will resolve the problem I had. They are most responsive and apparently there have been no other problems reported with the Malcolm repro. I am pretty sure the problem is due to the front scope block on my M70 having a slightly larger notch to hold the scope than the notch on the block provided with the scope.

Now, here are a few pictures of the differences as compared with my original USMC Unertl.

Thanks for the pictures Mike. When you put them side by side they are quite different.

Regards,

Jim

The differences are quite noticeable in length. Although I notice the original USMC Unertl has a 1.5" objective aperture? Were USMC Unertl scopes made in both 1.25" and 1.5"?






Paul.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sniper1944

The differences are quite noticeable in length. Although I notice the original USMC Unertl has a 1.5" objective aperture? Were USMC Unertl scopes made in both 1.25" and 1.5"

Paul.

---

The USMC used the 8x (7.8x) 1.25" Combination Target Scope on the WW2 M1903A1. The only variation i ma aware of in that production run is that a portion of the scopes had 1/4" click stops and the later ones had 1/2" click stops.

In later years as in Vietnam the remanants of the WW2 scopes were recycled and some target scopes with different specs may have found their way into sniper service.

Regards,

Jim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sniper1944

The differences are quite noticeable in length. Although I notice the original USMC Unertl has a 1.5" objective aperture? Were USMC Unertl scopes made in both 1.25" and 1.5"?






Paul.

---

I am pretty sure that the 1.25 objective refers to the objective lens. The scope pictured has an 1.25 objective lens best I can measure. The sunshade is about 1.5 inches OD. I don't think the sunshade is were Unertl made their measurement. You will note in the chart above, the 1.25 12X scopes had an objective cell of 1 and five-eighths inches. I assume that is where the adjusting serrations are, which is bigger in OD than the sunshade and about 1 and five eighths inches.

I looked at a bunch of pictures on the net and all the period pictures I can find show a scope that looks identical to mine. Of course I do not have a side by side comparison but having posted this scope many times on at least 3 different rifles, nobody ever questioned its correctness. I have handled several other originals and they look like this scope, at least as best as I can recall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike radford

Hi-Lux service is very helpful and I feel sure that they will resolve the problem I had. They are most responsive and apparently there have been no other problems reported with the Malcolm repro. I am pretty sure the problem is due to the front scope block on my M70 having a slightly larger notch to hold the scope than the notch on the block provided with the scope.

Now, here are a few pictures of the differences as compared with my original USMC Unertl.

---

Mike, thanks for the side by side pictures and the update on the Hi-Lux.

It almost looks as if Hi-Lux copied Lyman target spot style mounts and not Unertl mounts.

TW56

I realise I'm stretching the topic a bit with this post but I thought you might like to see some pics of my latest project. The serial number dates manufacture as 1958 and when she came to me she was a rather tired looking and shot out .243". Its been a slow project and has taken the best part of eighteen months to locate the parts I needed and get her to the stage she's at now. I was toying with the idea of aquiring one of the Malcolm scopes as unless I sell a Kidney I don't think I'll ever be lucky enough to own a Genuine U.S.M.C. Unertl, however I think I'll stick with the Lyman Targetspot.

For the finishing touches I'm on the lookout for a pair of sling swivels so I can add a canvas Garand sling, if anyone out there can help me locate a set I'd be extremely grateful.

Watch out for a range report at some point in the hopefully very near future.

Cheers,

Simon.

P.S. A big thank you to Andrew Evans-Hendrick and the team at Riflecraft for all their help with this project.

Poster over on the CMP forum contacted Leatherwood about some of the variances noted with their 8x target scope reproduction. A copy follows the underlining and bolding are mine:

"Response from Hi-Lux
I wrote to Hi-Lux and passed on our comments on the mounts issues. Here is Hi-Lux' response, with my e-mail appearing below:

Hi,

Thank you for your e-mail. Actually we did not copy the original 8X scope, because the optics that was used at the old time has no comparison with the today’s new optics. We need to redesign the whole optical system to make the scope that is capable to see a clear image at the low light situation. Because of the different optical systems, our scope cannot be the same length as the original one. That won’t be a problem to use. Our mounting system is getting very good now after several production run. We track this scope on the collimator , at the 7.2” spacing between the front and rear mounts, the each click is exactly the ¼ MOA adjustment and it is repeatable. Meantime we try to improve the finish of our steel mounts. Most people now are making the mount aluminum. But we try to stay to make the steel mounts. We sell the scope, mount, recoil spring and the bases for 1903 a1 as a package deal. We give the accessories free with the scope. This scope is one of the most difficult scopes to make in the market. That’s is why today there is no one to make this kind scope any more. We are still learning how we can make this scope better. We will stay on top of the quality and try to make it better. We will have a new shipment coming in May. We have already improved quality. I hope the people who are loving to use this kind vintage style scope would support us and give us a little bit more credit for making this kind scope available again. If you still have any questions about this scope, please feel free to contact us. We will try our best to continue making the good quality 8X scope. Thank you for your support.



Best Regards,



Hi-Lux, Inc."

Well that explains things. Not really a replica:yikes:

Regards,

Jim

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:45 AM ----------

BTW on the subject does anyone have a photograph or at least a description of rubber bands might be used to replace the Unertl recoil absorber. I am having trouble picturing it.

Thanks,

Jim

They are definitely trying hard to make a good product and making efforts to build a good reputation. Optics on mine are excellent. The definitely have the vintage sniper matches in mind for these scopes, as opposed to making a faithful copy. The scopes are OK with CMP matches and apparently that was a big goal.

Jerry, are you able to post a picture so us non-knowing guys can understand what it is being discussed? :o