Registered User
Good afternoon I was wondering what’s the valve of a tasco tr 6-24x40 scope in very good condition I know I put the wrong one in the thread title
Cheers for looking
Registered User
There was one in the sales section recently for £130 (IIRC inc postage), I bought one a while back on here for £85 posted.
I suggest somewhere between those prices pending condition, if it has all the original bits i.e. the extra elevation turret drums then possibly a bit more.
People who have been there focus on the fundamentals. People who sit at keyboards all day focus on the trivial and inane.
Registered User
When you say you brought one a while back how long we talking budOriginally Posted by rockdrill
may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal repleneration
They're a good quality 90s scope but are obviously more than 20 years old now. I bought one for £70 off the bay 5 years ago, and another one for about £110. Depends on the condition, but £70-£135 is about right, maybe £150 for as new? People like mildots now and these have bracketing reticles and 1" bodies - old school.
Registered User
This one hasn’t got original box instructions or all the turrets but from the pictures I’ve seen very nice condition and was a fair price
Cheers
may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal repleneration
They're a really nice scope and I wish I had not sold mine. Quality Japanese work. Just make sure the parallax adjuster is not super-stiff. The smaller TR is good as well.
Registered User
Tbh I might not keep it anyway it’s for a 1979 fwb 124 sport and I’d rather something smaller like a 3-9x40
But see how I feel once it turns up
may also be employed in conjunction with a drawn reciprocation dingle arm, to reduce sinusoidal repleneration
It's a long scope and I'm not sure it would fit on a Sport... would be cool if it did though, add a bit of weight to the rifle. More one for a 77 or TX iirc.
Registered User
If it does fit I’ll try abit of old school field target with it
My 97 is fully tricked up big nikko and cs1000 stock
And Paul short stage 4 tuned
Dodgy Diana User
Bit much for a Sport. Don’t like that idea myself, even if it doesn’t foul the breech block. Just measured one. A bit over 15” long. That’s long.
I guess they sit best on old-school FT PCPs, something like a Shamal or NJR.
The classic Sport FT scope is the Tasco 2-7x32AO. But nothing bigger than a 3-9x40 or, if you really must, and I wouldn’t, a 4-12x40.
I’ve had two 6-24 TRs in recent years. The cheaper one was around £75-85, the really nice one with all the bits was about £130.
Registered User
I totally agree but I’ll give a try but my preference would be an old tv style scope for the fwb but the tasco is a scope I’ve always fancied a look through as I ask previously good chance it will be passed on I haven’t got an itch to get an old sportsmatch or s njr
I’ve got two steyr and a hw97 for field target
I like useing the fwb just with the original open sights to be fair but as I say I’d just got an itch to try this tasco and pass it on I expect
Registered User
Apologies for the delay in replying.
I just checked back and it was July 2019 and I actually paid £100 posted for it. I got mixed up as there was another 6-24x40 TR in the same advert for £80 posted as it had a mark on it.
With these older scopes, they are nice but are a gamble as if anything goes wrong with them they are pretty much scrap.
People who have been there focus on the fundamentals. People who sit at keyboards all day focus on the trivial and inane.
Registered User
Tasco scopes changed over time. To me they weren't the same by the time Deben became their UK Agent in the mid 90's. Tasco was always a selected range from various manufacturers and made to their specs to match their target market. Some Tascos were excellent, others not so great.
Their TR and longer scopes are best fitted to HW77 and Theobens. Anything with a longish action or underlever.
FWB Sports are best with 4 or 3-9x40 scale scopes. A x32 with OP is 40mm scale too. A Sport to my mind is a up to 30m sporting rifle, whereas a HW77 goes beyond. So the former gains nothing from excessive magnification.
Registered User
Yeah I totally agree with what your saying as I say I quite like useing the fwb just with open sights
I’ve been keeping my eye out for day a tasco omni view tv style preferably 3-9x40
The tr turned up and I knew it was fair price so snapped it up more and likely will pass on after having a little try of it or I’ll just keep it on the back burner
Registered User
In my youth then The scope to have was the Optima Moonlighter 3-9x45. The early ones sometimes need reparallaxing for x9 at 30m. Though they came with a BDC the BDC aren't really up to the job. Later versions came with AO but this bulked them out and the general quality wasn't that marvellous. I have kept two earlier ones even though I have stopped collecting. Just in case I start afresh; these are increasingly hard to find, the rifles are easy.
The Optimas are in truth rather average.
I have a 4x40 on a FWB Sport 127 with Apel mounts and to me is the perfect combo for looks and the rifles intended use. Circa 1984.
My favourite Tasco is a 4-16x40 AO with a plex. No rangefinder reticle or magnification multi animal ring. My last one I sold with a Theoben SLR 88. I missed a mint one the other year; I'd rather like another. Circa late 80's early 90's.
A Tasco I'm keeping is a 6x40 with the Stag head. Reparallaxed to 25m its on my tuned HW95 and what might be considered just a superior FWB Sport combo. Circa 1986 to 92.
One of my favourite scopes, and longest, is the B&L 6X24X40 AO. I have one, but deciding on the right rifle. It was on a Venom 77 but even for that was on the long side. Circa 1992.
I have a little 2-5x32 B&L on my Theoben Fenman .177 and a complete joy. That had to be reparallaxed for 25m too. Circa 1991.
AO at the old mass market level bring as many issues as they solve. Shift of POI is common when switching distances. To work as they should, they really need to be well made and stay correct. Which at this level of materials and quality control becomes more luck than much else. A few will do it, but not all. I've given up on them bar the odd exception as noted. There are less issues with side parallax scopes as found on more modern designs.
A whole host of collectable rifles really are undressed without a matching period scope. Sadly the scopes aren't as robust as the rifles. There are a lot of tatty, or even busted ones out there; very few mint.
Much can be said about mounts. Apel and Hilver mounts are hard found. They look best on HW's, FWN Sports, Webley Omegas, BSF's, and customs. There are a few one piece that look OK. Sportsmatch can look a bit bulky.
I've let most of my stuff go, though kept the "impossible to find" choice pieces. It has been fun doing the "been there done that".
Most "budget" scopes were pretty "average" and all built a bit soft. Wire cross hairs break. OA could cause issues. Light transmission not exactly blinding, and age doesn't improve them. A very few were properly bright, or as bright as a far more expensive Leupold. Early 90s the Simmons WTC arrived and showed up how "average" the market had got. Sadly even those weren't that bright. By the time Deben took up a big chunk of the budget market then cheap optics showed how cheap they were; things just didn't get better. Later the Chinese products hit the market and at the beginning they were poor. Things are better but all the old issues are still there if buying too cheap. Its probably as hard now as it ever was to find a "good" scope as it ever was. Just too much choice and far too much "average" done. Its quite hard to do a good scope. Most annoying when you find one the manufacturer goes and messes with it.
Modern shooting becomes more and more deliberate now. Its all about pin point accuracy and how long a shot takes to do is secondary. That puts great demands on the scopes. Its always been that the scope might well be as much as the rifle, 60 to 80% easy; even in 1985.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote