Question about 1600 Anschutz
Moderators: pilkguns, Marcus, m1963, David Levene, Spencer
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
Here is a pic of my rifle, please take a look an offer any last observations that pertain to my original question(if there is any). Thank you so much!
- Attachments
-
- Rifle
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
Yes, that's a 1613. I think the triggerguard has been replaced, and almost certainly the bedding bolts too; the original would have been smaller with slot-headed countersunk bolts. I'm guessing this has hex-head bolts, most likely with belville washers under the heads.
I have to say I've never seen a 3200 mounted to the receiver. This would place it slightly further forwards. I'm jot sure whether the very extended butt is driving the position of the 'scope, or vice versa.
I have to say I've never seen a 3200 mounted to the receiver. This would place it slightly further forwards. I'm jot sure whether the very extended butt is driving the position of the 'scope, or vice versa.
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
It is a hex head, you are correct! I will be digging into her soon to look for the trigger designation.
As for the scope observation, I hope what I’ve set up is not in poor form, something I shouldn’t have done. But as to why, it’s the only location that works efficiently for eye relief. I ran the butt out to where my finger rested nicely on the trigger. To accomplish figuring out my pull, I placed the butt in the bend of my elbow and forearm then stretched out my arm so that I had a comfortable grip and my trigger finger had an effortless squeeze on the blade. Does that sound correct to you? I want to do this right!
As for the scope observation, I hope what I’ve set up is not in poor form, something I shouldn’t have done. But as to why, it’s the only location that works efficiently for eye relief. I ran the butt out to where my finger rested nicely on the trigger. To accomplish figuring out my pull, I placed the butt in the bend of my elbow and forearm then stretched out my arm so that I had a comfortable grip and my trigger finger had an effortless squeeze on the blade. Does that sound correct to you? I want to do this right!
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
I have a theory about the “A” above the serial number… I wonder if it could be a designation by Anschutz for rifles destined for high school or jrotc shooting programs? This gun was purchased by a local high school in 1979 or 1980 for their local club. The shooting club was defunded in 1982 and the school sold off the guns… that’s the story behind this rifle. Who knows if it’s true, but I rather like the story!
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
The butt = forearm method is an old one, but not one I like. For prone/sling shooters there are way more factors than just the forearm. Personally, I like to adjust the butt length so my hand reaches the grip comfortably and easily, my shoulder is relaxed, and my wrist is as straight as possible*. When the trigger blade is adjustable, butt length is more about the hand and arm rather than the trigger finger, this is a separate adjustment. The forearm method, IMO, tends to extend the butt far more than is needed; for example if I set my rifle up this way, the butt would be 15in to the grip. It's actually 11-12in (I haven't measured it in a while). Over-extending the butt pushes out the mass of the rifle, making it harder to balance. Now, this may not be an issue shooting from a bench, but is when shooting sling supported.
*Sometimes the shape of the grip just doesn't allow a naturally straight wrist.
*Sometimes the shape of the grip just doesn't allow a naturally straight wrist.
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
Possibly, but why would Anschutz have to mark these specially? Did Anschutz, or the US importer, offer a discount that required additional stock control?
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
Thank you for the advice on the length of the butt. It’s funny you said what you did because I had it about 1.5 to 2 inches shorter when I first started shooting last year, and it felt wonderful. But then I figured I had better do the “butt-forearm “ method to be technically correct. I’m going to shorten it up based on your advice.
The “a” in the serial number issue is only me speculating. I would like to think there is a reason behind that “A”. Lol
The “a” in the serial number issue is only me speculating. I would like to think there is a reason behind that “A”. Lol
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
Tim, your advice on the placement of the butt plate was right on…I shortened the butt about 2 inches, took most of the side to side wobble out of my hold. Also, my come down was more consistent which enabled me to time my shot with more confidence. Consequentially I shot my first 90(50ft, offhand)in tonight’s practice. Thank you for the advice!
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
I have a few examples that will wreck that theory: Guns I know for a fact were sold to the general public in the US with the A on the receiver near the serial number.I have a theory about the “A” above the serial number… I wonder if it could be a designation by Anschutz for rifles destined for high school or jrotc shooting programs?
Next idea? :)
'Dude
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
In looking a the rifle overall:
I will agree with Tim, I have never seen a Redfield 3200 mounted to the receiver like that. Those mounts are remarkably tall.
If you are shooting standing then the distance between the barrel centerline and eyepiece of the scope is probably OK. Even for kneeling where the head is pretty much upright the distance is still pretty much OK. For prone, the scope is way too high.
As the name '3200' implies, the Redfield 3200 was developed specifically for an American Prone event that consisted of 320 rounds, usually fired over 2 days. The dominant prone position at the time (1960s and 1970s) was low, with the head tilted forward, the aiming eye not much above the barrel. As a result, the scopes were also mounted right down on the barrel, usually with no more than 1/4 inch (6mm) between the objective bell and the barrel. Hence, most of the guns from the period came from the factory with scope mounting blocks on the barrel, forward of the receiver. This was to accommodate the long body scopes, (Redfield 3200, Lyman and Unertl) The Lyman and Unertl scopes had external adjustments and there would be no way to mount them to the receiver. Period! While you have gotten it to work with the internally adjusted 3200 I am concerned with the amount of mass hanging out in front of the forward mount. A lot of scope bouncing around up there, even with the very modest recoil of a 22LR.
Just my two cents
'dude
I will agree with Tim, I have never seen a Redfield 3200 mounted to the receiver like that. Those mounts are remarkably tall.
If you are shooting standing then the distance between the barrel centerline and eyepiece of the scope is probably OK. Even for kneeling where the head is pretty much upright the distance is still pretty much OK. For prone, the scope is way too high.
As the name '3200' implies, the Redfield 3200 was developed specifically for an American Prone event that consisted of 320 rounds, usually fired over 2 days. The dominant prone position at the time (1960s and 1970s) was low, with the head tilted forward, the aiming eye not much above the barrel. As a result, the scopes were also mounted right down on the barrel, usually with no more than 1/4 inch (6mm) between the objective bell and the barrel. Hence, most of the guns from the period came from the factory with scope mounting blocks on the barrel, forward of the receiver. This was to accommodate the long body scopes, (Redfield 3200, Lyman and Unertl) The Lyman and Unertl scopes had external adjustments and there would be no way to mount them to the receiver. Period! While you have gotten it to work with the internally adjusted 3200 I am concerned with the amount of mass hanging out in front of the forward mount. A lot of scope bouncing around up there, even with the very modest recoil of a 22LR.
Just my two cents
'dude
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
Dude, I certainly respect your position on both topics. I’ve read many of your posts and take your advice with high regard.
My comment on the “a” above the serial number was purely speculative. I’m just curious. Maybe there were only 26 of these barrels manufactured and I ended up with the first one.
As to the height of the scope, when I zero’d it, I was in prone and I did notice some extra upward stretching, but nothing too bad to cause tremors. If you have anymore advice, I would really appreciate the help, as I’m quite new to this sport. I do have a couple quick questions about my scope for you. What’s the difference between the 3200 and the 6400? Also, do you think the amount of scope “hanging” out over the barrel would cause accuracy issues or having to re-sight in often? Mine was purchased used in 1974 by my father. I told Tim it was a 3200, now I wonder if I’m wrong. The information I found on the interweb led me to declare it a 3200.
My comment on the “a” above the serial number was purely speculative. I’m just curious. Maybe there were only 26 of these barrels manufactured and I ended up with the first one.
As to the height of the scope, when I zero’d it, I was in prone and I did notice some extra upward stretching, but nothing too bad to cause tremors. If you have anymore advice, I would really appreciate the help, as I’m quite new to this sport. I do have a couple quick questions about my scope for you. What’s the difference between the 3200 and the 6400? Also, do you think the amount of scope “hanging” out over the barrel would cause accuracy issues or having to re-sight in often? Mine was purchased used in 1974 by my father. I told Tim it was a 3200, now I wonder if I’m wrong. The information I found on the interweb led me to declare it a 3200.
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
It's a 3200. The 6400 is noticeably shorter, and was designed to be mounted to the receiver. I'd add that target 'scopes were originally barrel mounted, because a looooong tube was the only way to get high magnification at the time.
I had assumed from the 'scope mounting that you were shooting from a bench, and so needed the 'scope to be so high for a comfortable neck. Prone, welll I hope you have a good chiropractor on call! Seriously though, I think it would be hard to meet the 30° forearm with such a high sightline. Now the buttplatehas been run in, I would seriously consider mounting the 'scope on the barrel, as was intended. It may be possible to use slightly taller rings, or raiser blocks (the barrel mounts are the same 3/8in dovetail as period Anschutz foresights).
I had assumed from the 'scope mounting that you were shooting from a bench, and so needed the 'scope to be so high for a comfortable neck. Prone, welll I hope you have a good chiropractor on call! Seriously though, I think it would be hard to meet the 30° forearm with such a high sightline. Now the buttplatehas been run in, I would seriously consider mounting the 'scope on the barrel, as was intended. It may be possible to use slightly taller rings, or raiser blocks (the barrel mounts are the same 3/8in dovetail as period Anschutz foresights).
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
Hi Opus,
Thanks for the props on my comments. I have been at this a few years so a few thing have sunk in.
First, regarding a 3200 vs 6400. You have a 3200.
In the image here, a Redfield 6400 is on top, about 2/3 the length of a Redfield 3200.
You mention your father purchased the scope in 1974. That is about the same year the one pictured here was purchased, near the height of their popularity. The 6400 came out a few years later, 1980 or there about. The 6400 was OK but IMHO optically not the scope the 3200 was. Being lighter and with the weight further back a 6400 in lower power, would be a better choice for position shooting.
As for the mounting, look at the 3200, the mounting rings are set up to mount on the blocks typical of the Anschutz barrel. Set up for shooting prone.
I cannot say that your present mounting scheme will not work but I recommend against it. The center of mass of a 3200 is about 3" behind the objective bell. From your picture, the center of mass is probably 6" in front of your forward scope mount. This makes the scope just a big old tuning fork hanging out there, bouncing along on top of the barrel. You really are better off with the center of mass on the 3200 in between the two mounts.
While you could spend the rest of your life looking for the genuine Redfield mounts for the 3/8" scope blocks from the early 1970s, scope mounts that will accommodate the blocks on your rifle and hold the 3200 (1" tube) at a more appropriate height should not be too hard to locate. I an also add the updated scope mounts would probably be a fine thing as the original Redfield mounts for the smallbore applications were always fiddly and a pain in the tush in my opinion.
'dude
Thanks for the props on my comments. I have been at this a few years so a few thing have sunk in.
First, regarding a 3200 vs 6400. You have a 3200.
- Redfield 6400 on top, 3200 on bottom
You mention your father purchased the scope in 1974. That is about the same year the one pictured here was purchased, near the height of their popularity. The 6400 came out a few years later, 1980 or there about. The 6400 was OK but IMHO optically not the scope the 3200 was. Being lighter and with the weight further back a 6400 in lower power, would be a better choice for position shooting.
As for the mounting, look at the 3200, the mounting rings are set up to mount on the blocks typical of the Anschutz barrel. Set up for shooting prone.
I cannot say that your present mounting scheme will not work but I recommend against it. The center of mass of a 3200 is about 3" behind the objective bell. From your picture, the center of mass is probably 6" in front of your forward scope mount. This makes the scope just a big old tuning fork hanging out there, bouncing along on top of the barrel. You really are better off with the center of mass on the 3200 in between the two mounts.
While you could spend the rest of your life looking for the genuine Redfield mounts for the 3/8" scope blocks from the early 1970s, scope mounts that will accommodate the blocks on your rifle and hold the 3200 (1" tube) at a more appropriate height should not be too hard to locate. I an also add the updated scope mounts would probably be a fine thing as the original Redfield mounts for the smallbore applications were always fiddly and a pain in the tush in my opinion.
'dude
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
As for the 'A' on the receiver: Somewhere in a German old folks home is some guy, laughing his butt off, telling a story about randomly stamping the letter 'A' into Match 54 receivers just to keep people guessing. :)
'dude
'dude
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
I had an A marked anschutz 54 1600 a couple of years ago, bought directly from an importer that got them from Europe, I figured it was something to do with being a Europe production but have zero factual base for that, just like zero facts for it being a school run
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
The 3200 scopes came with scope rings that mated correctly with the unertl type barrel mounted scope blocks. Your 3200 has had the rings replaced. The original rings were unique and are very difficult to find. There is a guy I found online that makes replacements. Not cheap though.
I think you can forget finding parts for the 5071 trigger. The issue that occurs with this trigger is that the pivot pins are tapered and held in with a blob of red goop. This goop comes loose and the pins can work their way out. As mentioned Anschutz used to make a later version of the 5071 with straight pins held in with e clips- these are not available anymore. There’s only one part that’s required to change a 5018 to a 5071- the catch i think it’s called. I used to have a few but used one and sold one. These also are pretty much unavailable now. What i usually do with one of these original 5071’s is to check if the red goop on the pins is still tight. If so leave it. If it looks loose pop it off. Then reseat the pin, degrees the area and put a blob of epoxy where the red stuff was. Works well.
I think you can forget finding parts for the 5071 trigger. The issue that occurs with this trigger is that the pivot pins are tapered and held in with a blob of red goop. This goop comes loose and the pins can work their way out. As mentioned Anschutz used to make a later version of the 5071 with straight pins held in with e clips- these are not available anymore. There’s only one part that’s required to change a 5018 to a 5071- the catch i think it’s called. I used to have a few but used one and sold one. These also are pretty much unavailable now. What i usually do with one of these original 5071’s is to check if the red goop on the pins is still tight. If so leave it. If it looks loose pop it off. Then reseat the pin, degrees the area and put a blob of epoxy where the red stuff was. Works well.
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
Woops duplicate post…
Last edited by pdeal on Sun Jun 16, 2024 8:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
Thank all of you for your valuable insight and advice. I will be moving my scope back out on the barrel.
Quick question, I’ve been told by some of my teammates to try to change out my Redfield for a Leupold 24x fixed efr (not quite sure the exact model) with target dot crosshair. I’ve looked online for one and when I do find one it’s spendy and old. With that said, is it worth it for 4 position shooting? And is a dot reticle personal preference?
Quick question, I’ve been told by some of my teammates to try to change out my Redfield for a Leupold 24x fixed efr (not quite sure the exact model) with target dot crosshair. I’ve looked online for one and when I do find one it’s spendy and old. With that said, is it worth it for 4 position shooting? And is a dot reticle personal preference?
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
Also, while I’m thinking about it, maybe all of you can help with another issue I’m having. Please let me know if I’m breaking forum protocols. I have several parts left to me, from Schuetzen style shooting, by my Dad. I would like to know if it’s “stuff” (can’t think of the proper words to use) people would want? I figure all of you would have advice for me. Again, if this isn’t the proper place to ask, please point me in the right direction.
Re: Question about 1600 Anschutz
I'll take a guess that they're recommending the Leupold because it's smaller, most likely lighter, and easier to adjust (the turrets are closer to you). While there are plenty of inexpensive 'scopes around, but if you want a fixed power 'scope there isn't so much choice.Opusxc100 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 4:30 pm Thank all of you for your valuable insight and advice. I will be moving my scope back out on the barrel.
Quick question, I’ve been told by some of my teammates to try to change out my Redfield for a Leupold 24x fixed efr (not quite sure the exact model) with target dot crosshair. I’ve looked online for one and when I do find one it’s spendy and old. With that said, is it worth it for 4 position shooting? And is a dot reticle personal preference?