Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
jwm94 said
Stroebel’s work is probably considered the Bible in this field.
If that’s true–sadly, it probably is–misinformation has won the day; but that’s not unusual.
By the way, for a good laugh as regards A5 values, read the question on A5s on p. 36 of the March Rifleman. I wish it were true, & I can remember when it was true years ago, but that was before faking sniper-rifles became the mania that it is now.
Clarence,
I’ll have to see if I can find a copy of the magazine you mention. 
About Stroebel and the misinformation: Just think of where the typical person would be w/o Stroebel’s book!!!!!! 
Talk later, Bud!
James
jwm94 said
About Stroebel and the misinformation: Just think of where the typical person would be w/o Stroebel’s book!!!!!!
Not in a bad place at all if they had the sources from which Stroebel “borrowed” most of his info: Whelen’s Telescopic Sights, Robert’s Breech Loading SS Rifle, Sharpe’s Rifle in America, maybe one or two others–all of which should be basic components of any gun collector’s library, whatever their specific interests, & available in cheap reprint eds.
Having a reference library about gun stuff in general is a huge plus, but so is having one must have go to book like Stroebels when interested about most any scope and mount ever made during a certain period of time.
I wish there was a book on the Malcolm scopes. Is there a decent book on scopes?
Chuck said
I wish there was a book on the Malcolm scopes.
It would be impossible to fill a “book” with the info known on Malcolm, unless it was filled with scores of photos of his scopes. However, an outstanding article about them was published by Gun Report about 25 yrs ago; never seen anything else about them half as good. I thank God I got my copy before the mag went under, as now there’s no way I know of to acquire copies of their articles, unless maybe there’s a library somewhere that has posted them on-line.
Copies of Malcolm catalogs are available from Cornell Pub.
Here is a picture of my W. A. Malcolm scope. It is so marked in an arch over 3008. The tube diameter is 0.75″ with an overall length of 22.5″. I think it may be a #2 Hunting and Target model? There are no markings that show the power rating. Any ideas?
Same as the Feckers. Must have been a deep, dark, secret, as to the powers of these scopes. Fecker did put the power on after WW2. BTW, that is one heck of a rifle you have there. Big Larry
One heck of a rifle, it is! Is “Syracuse” marked under the ser. no.? If so, it means it was built before 1910-11, when the current owner (Malcolm was long dead) moved to Auburn, NY. Only catalogs I have are from that later period, when the numbering system had changed, & most of the scopes being produced were in the 16-18″ range; however, that same side-mount was still listed in the catalog, as well as longer scopes of higher power.
Thanks guys. No other markings on the scope except a 2 under the 3008. I was told that this scope is from the 1890’s? The guy that once owned it cleans and repairs these. There is a company that makes scopes (Malcolm copies) that also makes mounts. Nothing like this one. The dust cover must be removed so the mount can catch onto the rail. No tapping necessary. See https://hi-luxoptics.com/.
Beautiful combo, Chuck!!!! My guess would be that it is the Early Model Target Scope (1855-1880), even though Stroebel lists them as being 24-32 inches in length, he also indicates that from the 1880s on they trended toward shorter lengths and lower power, and who knows for sure that they did not start trending to shorter lengths prior to the 1880s? My guess would be probably no one. Just guesses, though.
James
Chuck said
I was told that this scope is from the 1890’s? The guy that once owned it cleans and repairs these.
He was mistaken, because after the move to Auburn (by 1906 Malcolm Co. is listed in the city business directory), the “Syracuse” marking was dropped. “Auburn” was not put in its place.
Since only #1 and #4 grade scopes are listed in the catalog I have, if there ever were #2 & 3 grades, which makes sense, they must have been dropped by that time.
Hi-Luxe has NOTHING whatever to do with the original Malcolm Co., & I’ve always wondered how they got away with stealing the name.
I agree with what Clarence says about the fellow being wrong, which fits with my initial thinking that you have the Early Model Target Scope (1855-1880).
I’m also thinking that the #1 – #4 grades of scopes noted in the catalog that Clarence has are going to be the same as the Models No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 scopes that Stroebel addresses.
James
jwm94 said
I agree with what Clarence says about the fellow being wrong, which fits with my initial thinking that you have the Early Model Target Scope (1855-1880).
James, Just can’t see how it could be that if it lacks the “Syracuse” marking.
However, I just noticed in a partial repro of an undated Malcolm catalog a description of a #2 model, called the “Imperial.” It evidently differs from the #1 model, called simply the”Achromatic” model, in not having, I guess, achromatic lenses–though it would be very surprising for it to lack an achromatic objective, at least. It was priced at $30 vs. $45 for the #1, NOT inc. mounts.
clarence said
jwm94 said
I agree with what Clarence says about the fellow being wrong, which fits with my initial thinking that you have the Early Model Target Scope (1855-1880).James, Just can’t see how it could be that if it lacks the “Syracuse” marking.
However, I just noticed in a partial repro of an undated Malcolm catalog a description of a #2 model, called the “Imperial.” It evidently differs from the #1 model, called simply the”Achromatic” model, in not having, I guess, achromatic lenses–though it would be very surprising for it to lack an achromatic objective, at least. It was priced at $30 vs. $45 for the #1, NOT inc. mounts.
Oh, okay. I think I’m following you now, if I understand you correctly, Chuck’s Malcolm scope was made after the move from Syracuse, circa 1906. Is that correct? And, with your news about the “Imperial Model” it looks like Malcolm did make a No. 2 scope with 3/4 inch tube, aside from the No. 2 scopes that had the .8125 inch tubes. This causes me to think that the number 2 mark on Chuck’s scope might represent the model rather than the magnification. What do you think?
Thanks for the information, Clarence.
James
jwm94 said
if I understand you correctly, Chuck’s Malcolm scope was made after the move from Syracuse, circa 1906. Is that correct?
Correct. I’m also sure “2” doesn’t represent the power, even though, considering the objective dia., that would have made for much brighter optics; in fact, most scope buyers of the time believed that, regarding power, “more is better,” leading to very dark, small diameter, scopes of 8-10X & even higher.
Here’s a picture of my Winchester Model 75. It matches up well with the Model No. 3 Target Scope. The mounts, bases, and screws are Malcolm.
James
clarence said
jwm94 said
if I understand you correctly, Chuck’s Malcolm scope was made after the move from Syracuse, circa 1906. Is that correct?Correct. I’m also sure “2” doesn’t represent the power, even though, considering the objective dia., that would have made for much brighter optics; in fact, most scope buyers of the time believed that, regarding power, “more is better,” leading to very dark, small diameter, scopes of 8-10X & even higher.
I’m of the same opinion that the 2 does not represent the power, now that information has surfaced about the “Imperial” – which might very well be the Model No. 2 Hunting Scope with a 3/4 inch tube, hence the “2” marking on Chuck’s scope, and I think if it was the No. 2 Target Scope, it would have the “T” marking; this Imperial scope is not noted in Stroebel’s work.
James
jwm94 said
jwm94 said
Here’s a picture of my Winchester Model 75. It matches up well with the Model No. 3 Target Scope. The mounts, bases, and screws are Malcolm.
Very typical of the later Malcolms. Can’t make out model designation below the ser. number, but it should be #1 or 4.
Winchester introduced their “No. 8” model scope (8X) in the mid-’30s ostensibly for the M. 75, but they were also sold separately, & lots of them show up on ebay. Don’t know how the optics compare (probably equivalent), but the Malcolm has much superior mounts.
Clarence, this scope is absolutely stunning in every aspect. I truly don’t understand how the company stayed in business building such high quality scopes while competing with bigger companies, to include, cheap model scopes. And, apparently the one thing that never changed about their products was the superb quality and craftsmanship right up to the very end, circa 1941, which is when the Winchester it is now on was made. Nothing about the Winchester No. 8 Model scope made for the 75 can compare with it in my estimation. And, considering the outstanding condition it’s in, I seriously doubt one could ever find another one of its kind and condition, bases and screws included, unless they got exceedingly lucky like I did. The man that sold it to me was putting his estate in order, and I got to know him the best I could in that time. He gave me a letter briefly describing its history back to the early fifties when his father gave it to him…I’m thinking on his 10th birthday.
Regarding its model designation that you mention: I retrieved the 75 from the safe and took the scope and one of its bases off, and found that you appear to be correct about it being a Model No. 1. Do you have a reference that Malcolm made a Model No. 1 scope with the Hunting or Target scope features in a 3/4 inch tube in 6X? I don’t.
Added: Oh and you will appreciate this note: This rifle and scope came from Lee’s Summit, MO…which sprang up near Cole’s home in the 1860s.
James
1 Guest(s)
