Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I just got this Targetspot 10x scope at an estate sale, and notice it’s front mount doesn’t have an upper cylinder as most do. It’s just a simple ring. At first I thought it was a Junior (just because it was so small), but this morning I notice it doesn’t actually say Junior anywhere, just “Targetspot”.
It’s got a 2417 serial number, perhaps the front is how they were. Is it correct (I also note no spring).
Here is the Junior I’ve had for several years, note the front is quite different:
What a dandy rifle/scope combination!!! You did GOOD!
I could be wrong, but one has the vertical guide bar on the top, the other on the bottom. Just two different variations. Possibly different era production. RDB
The change in the design of the mounts occurred in 1937, when both the STS & the Jr. were introduced. The original TS with its 4-point rear mount continued to be available for another 2 or 3 yrs, probably just old stock being sold off. I like the all-steel tube of the TS. It should have a stop ring, however; they come up for sale on ebay.
You’ve got an awesome deluxe Stevens!
If you contact SEEWIN (here on this forum or at RimfireCentral) he has the Lyman records and can give you an exact manufacturing date for your scopes based on the serial numbers.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Thanks, the guy’s estate I got it from was a Vietnam vet, bigtime target shooter, and head of the gun club. He had some black electrical tape wrapped behind the front mount, which I didn’t know why. Now I do. I may repeat his technique while looking for the right ring.
I pinged Seewin, I’d like to know how early this one is. Compared to my other, it seems quite early. If found that front mount has a little spring in the bottom, not top. And the rail on the bottom slides along it nicely if you push its mount upwards to slide.
It’s not mounted on that Win 75 I got a few weeks ago, no blocks are on it. It’s just balanced there for the photo. Thanks about the Stevens, it’s a Ladies 56 on the rare 044 1/2 action. With a single set trigger and a serial number matching second barrel set. Very accurate.
AZshot said
I may repeat his technique while looking for the right ring.
While you’re at it, get 2 of them–one to go in front of the ring, one behind, so you won’t have to keep pulling it back into battery. Those made by Unertl show up most often on ebay, but they won’t have the high-polish blue of the Lymans.
The bottom rib was a carry-over from Lyman’s first scope, the 5A, & it’s another feature of the TS I like better than the top rib on the STS. (Which, incidentally, was first used on Feckers.)
Really do not need two of the rings. The 22 does not push the scope back far enough to warrant two. If the scope does not go forward, it may damage the Xhairs. Do not use this scope on a high power rifle if you are going to get a return spring.
In my collection, I have # 2141, 10X with dot. Shipped 10-4-1936. It is in its hard to find, original wood box with decals.
Looks like you have a real nice one. It appears to be all correct maybe except for the ring.
Hard to say when shipped. The numbers go all over the place.
However, it looks out of place on a M75 Sporter. It is a target scope. My opinion anyway. Big Larry
Big Larry said
Really do not need two of the rings. The 22 does not push the scope back far enough to warrant two. If the scope does not go forward, it may damage the Xhairs. Do not use this scope on a high power rifle if you are going to get a return spring.
Larry, I’ve been using two clamp rings on .22s for 40+ yrs without damage–isn’t near enough recoil from a RF to do it. When I was buying scopes direct from Unertl, I always ordered 2 clamps. But it’s a personal thing I guess–I just don’t want the scope to move at all, which has accidentally happened to me when hunting. (For this reason, I prefer the Malcolm-type rigid mount on .22s, though they were also used on rifles of way more recoil.)
Recoil springs are the things that may damage crosshairs, though not on .22s; still, I don’t care for them at all. They were first devised by Unertl & were one of his earliest products. How so many of them came to be on Lymans I’ve never figured out, as they were NOT carried in the pre-war Lyman catalogs; maybe post-war, I don’t know.
Seewin said it was made in 1934, and pointed out the early features such as the Pope rail being on the bottom, the front mount with the spring on the bottom instead of in a top cylinder, etc. It has very clear optics. The owner also had a weaver g6 that for some reason he’d sent for a scope refurbishment, the receipt was still with it. So he was careful with his optics.
I look forward to using it, I just bought a 1933 Winchester 52 that already has blocks on it, that I hope will fit this mount. Will be good to have a scope from the exact period on it.
Hi. New guy here. Not a Win collector. More of an any brand as long as it is old kinda guy. Do own a pre-1900 .22 Low Wall, a .44-40 ’73 made in 1887, and a Mod 12 trap gun that I started shooting competitively when I was a teenager back in the 60’s. Actually, I’m really a shooter versus a collector. The club where I shoot is an old silhouette club and we have bent the rules to allow pretty much any rifle as long as cast bullets are used. We see High Walls, Low Walls, Hepburns, Rolling Blocks, Trap doors and just about any bolt action military rifle that was ever produced on the firing line. I shoot my Low Wall in .22 silhouette matches. The other two Winchesters just collect dust in the cabinet.
I know this thread is over a year old, but it has already provided much of the info I was looking for on a very old Lyman Targetspot SN 1768. So, it is older than the scope for which this thread was started.
I talked to Richard Parsons yesterday and Gil’s widow is still sitting on the original Lyman SN records and won’t let anyone see them. This thread revealed yet another source for Lyman SN records. I tried to find SEEWIN in the member list and could not. Did he leave the forum or worse, this life? I was thinking that perhaps a Guest Member might not have access to the full membership for search purposes. Would really love to pin down the DOM for this scope.
Thanks for any help you folks lend.
regards,
Rob
Snakeoil said
I talked to Richard Parsons yesterday and Gil’s widow is still sitting on the original Lyman SN records and won’t let anyone see them. This thread revealed yet another source for Lyman SN records. I tried to find SEEWIN in the member list and could not. Did he leave the forum or worse, this life?
Not at all. Might have better luck through the Rim Fire Central site.
I’m more amazed that Richard can still be located.
Seewin is still here and has the information you are looking for. You can PM him here or at rimfirecentral.com
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
As Jeff mentioned, I do have the original Lyman production record journals for all their scopes from 1929 – 1978. These are the original production logbooks used at the Lyman factory and are not copies. These include all scopes from the A5/5A cleanup until 1978, including the 5A, 438, Stag, Wolverine, Jr Targetspot, Targetspot, Super Targetspot, Alaskan, Challenger & Streamlite. Most contain serial number for those that were s/n’d along with DOM, reticle crosswire diameter, type of lens and assembler. They also have some interesting notes as to running production changes, specials, and in some cases customer. This includes sales to the Government, USMC etc. I have owned these for 7 or 8 years and have always looked up production dates/specs for a $20 nominal charge. I have temporarily stopped offering this service because of the condition of the original log books, some being nearly 100 years old. There are about 15 volumes of these records, most handwritten and every time I access these, I end up repairing multiple pages which tend to fall apart after all these years. Hopefully in the future, I will be able to get these all scanned and have access to them on my computer, and prevent any further damage to the originals.
Steve
seewin said
Hopefully in the future, I will be able to get these all scanned and have access to them on my computer, and prevent any further damage to the originals.Steve
I wish I could justify the cost of one of these portable “see through” scanners, which you merely lay down over whatever you wish to scan, as opposed to having to hold a large book upside down over the scanner bed. Still, having to do that for each page would be a time-consuming job.
I helped a man, now deceased, digitize the Dallmeyer factory ledgers from about 1864-1880. These are expensive large format camera lenses, brass. He was a nice collector of these, which are very popular today. Before we could finish, he died. His estate did the right thing, and continued the project. The ledgers are now online, free for anyone to look up their serial numbers.
http://www.thedallmeyerarchive.com/Records/Identification.html
I’m not saying the ledgers for Lyman should be free, I’m just saying try to get them digitized so the data is not lost or becomes someone’s hidden treasure.
Europe has a lot longer history than America, and for some reason they kept their records a lot better. America for some reason pitched things in the trash, always progressing, always active. I talked to a friend in Connecticut yesterday who was at a thrift store. They had received in donation a bunch of “old photos” of war settings, forts, etc. As he talked to me, he said they were marked on the back, “Brady’s studio”. They were Civil War CDVs from Matthew Brady, who was the most famous photographer of that period, took the portraits of Lincoln, etc. The thrift store was about to throw them away, the younger worker saying they wouldn’t sell at their monthly charity auction. The old lady said to the other, “no, I think these will sell, put them in the auction.” They went for $1100, for 12 photos. They could be in the land fill right now.
1 Guest(s)
