The purpose of the spring is to return the scope to battery, Better that your the spring, just don't forget!

marlinguy wrote on Jun 8^th, 2018 at 10:16am:


    Absolutely right.  The spring should NOT be used to fully return the scope, but just to minimize the amount of recoil movement.   If it returns the scope, the scope can "BANG" against the mounts with about the same G-forces as would result with a firmly mounted scope.  A spring is not needed on the light-recoiling rifles that most of use use.

CHRIS
RGChristensen

Unertl stated that his scopes could be solidly mounted without damage. A case in point, a good friend used a 2" Unertl on a 300 Pfeifer Magnum with no damage. I now own that rifle and continue to use that same setup. Lyman Targetspot scopes were wonderfully made scopes, but not designed for heavy recoiling rifles, so use of a spring was intended to assist the feeble minded to not forget to return the scope to battery when using light recoiling or rimfire target rifles. If a Lyman Supertarget is left to free recoil, it eliminates the tendency for an "ouchie" and damage to the scope from a solid mount or from an improperly adjusted spring if one chooses to use one. John Unertl was either an advocate of spring use, or possibly an advocate of making a dollar whenever possible. I tend to believe the former.

Redsetter wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 9:03am:


Unertl may have advertised the recoil spring first, but I don't believe he invented them or offered them first. Early Feckers had that recoil spring as an option before Unertl even started out on his own. Unless he came up with the idea while at Fecker.
My 1920's Cleveland Fecker with his version of the return spring:

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

Redsetter wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 11:08am:


I don't know if the recoil system on my Cleveland was original when new or not. But the fact they aren't often seen surely doesn't mean the opposite either. And I seriously doubt just because you haven't owned one it makes them an Unertl invention.
I got the gun with the scope on it from a advanced scope collector who has hundreds of early scopes and he said the retaining system for the spring is completely different than the later Feckers used, and unlike anything else. He thought it was original, but since Fecker didn't advertise them, he couldn't confirm it either.
Do you have a patent number for Unertl's invention of the recoil spring? Or are you assuming he invented/patented it because you saw it in an advertisement?

marlinguy wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 11:38am:


Take a look through the Stevens Arms patents, & you'll see no patent for their detachable scope mounting blocks--which without doubt they introduced.  Why?  They should at least have applied, as there's nothing to loose but minor legal expenses if a pat. app. is refused, but probably because similar dovetail attachments were in use for mounting machine tool accessories, they didn't pursue the matter.  (Patent-crazy Winchester would certainly have done so, if they'd thought of the idea first.) 

Anyway, who said anything about a Unertl pat. for the spring?  Even "invent" I put in quotes.  No idea why he didn't apply; maybe because he was advised that similar shock-absorbing springs were in use on other instruments.   

But suggesting that Fecker had been making them previously, but keeping it a closely guarded secret, defies logic & good sense.

Redsetter wrote on Jun 9^th, 2018 at 12:47pm:


I'd guess your seeing an advertisement is enough proof that Unertl invented the recoil spring, or patented it? You seeing an advertisement seems as much a jump to say he invented it, as my scope having a spring. 
And what exactly did you mean when you posted that Unertl "invented" the recoil return spring, if you didn't mean he invented it? Seems like an obvious attempt to give him credit for the invention based solely on an advertisement.
But you are the "EXPERT", so we should take your advertisement as the proof. Think I'll pass.