Im familiar with the unertl and Lyman STS scopes. 
I would like to hear comparisons with the Davis optical, the Fecker and Litscert scopes especially in the 20X range and how they stand up with Unertl and Lyman.

I recently acquired a Litschert 12 X, came with a rifle I'd liked for years.  Those cross-hairs are really dark & heavy.  Old time gun writers joked that Litschert used reject fence wire for cross-hairs.  But the optics seem OK, about like my Unertl & STS.  If I could hold a 12 X scope without shaking, it would be good for offhand.  If you go after varmints, it might be better that any of the others.

I've had a 6 X Fecker for years.  Not air tight, easily fogged up.  A pretty light scope, be OK for offhand if you left it in the sun for a couple of days before you used it.

Let me start with a qualifier. I’ve had two Lyman STS’s and four Unertl’s. Shot all of them atop 222’s, a Swift and a couple of 6 & 30 cal wildcats. But I’m not an optical expert by a long ways. I only know what worked for me. I am however able to pick people’s brains including one sniper instructor who I traded Star & Hollywood presses with and two Nam snipers. 

The Sniper crowd had shot lots of scopes but all said, empirically, that the Unertl scopes were just tougher.  That they could get banged around and still hold four corners three laps as they termed it. They never told me they were optically superior but for sniper use I just assumed they were acute-sharp. That's all I know

Rick

Thank you , all who responded. Guess I'll have to cough up the cost of a Unertl. They seem to be most prominent candidate for quality.

Unertl and Feckers: I don’t see a difference in the glass. The center focus on the Fecker sure makes that easier.

focus system?  Parallax adjustment? you mean the convienence?

When a scope is in perfect focus, ideally parallax is eliminated. At least that is my understanding. And with the Fecker that process is, yes, more convenient. One can check for parallax by looking thru the scope and moving your eye side to side, or up and down and observe if there is apparent movement of the reticle at the intended target. when movement is eliminated so is parallax. Whew!!

The thing to keep in mind with all these scopes is age. What was the best scope in its day, may be the worst one sitting on the table for the highest price. 

Stuck adjustments, foggy lenses, bent crosshairs, mounts with adjustments that won’t repeat……

I try not to get caught in manufacture as much as condition.

marlinguy wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2025 at 12:00pm:


I think whale oil was a precursor to super glue, it just took to long to bond so they used it as a lube.

I bought a Litschert in about the same condition as your Lyman. Paid about what just a box for a Unertl would have cost. The “rib” is a bit funky, but the optical quality holds its own with anything else out there. Litschert is a bit harder to find a bargin on now.

I like my Lischert scopes because the scope rings clamp on and seem to fit all types of bases. Cross hairs and optics are on par with all the other scopes. Never used a Fecker but I can understand why shooters like the focus in the middle of the scope.

I had one of those big Tasco external adjust scopes for a while, then was loaned a Junior target spot. The junior was less power but I liked adjusting better. Eventually I win a “for parts or repair” fecker on eBay. It was all froze up and needed crosshairs. Once I fixed it I put it on my stevens 44 1/2 in 38-55 I’d been shooting and with the help of a few people on this forum at a match quickly learned how to use the center adjustment. For what it’s worth, it’s still my favorite scope. Since then I’ve picked up my own Lyman Junior target spot and an Unertl varmit. I do like the large light gathering bell and 1” tube on the Unertl, but still favor the fecker for just target shooting. I’m working on an R2 Lovell project and think that’s where the Unertl will end up. 
I don’t think anyone can go wrong with any of the scopes you mentioned. 
I’d still like to eventually get myself a litschert. I’ve only had the boosters on old scopes. For some dumb reason I sold all of those. Probably needed the money for some obscure loading tool or something. 
Happy new year and happy shooting!

I've never had a Unertl, because of cost but, I have one Litschert, Lyman STS and one Fecker. I think they are fairly even in performace.

The Fecker, is ~14x, it's on a 22 rf and shoot it mostly at 100 but, I have shot it in 200 yd matches. I have to use a spotting scope to make sure of the impacts @ 200 but, can see most.

I've had three STS, two 20x and a 25x. I sold the 25x because the FOV was to small @ 100. I love the 20x, they seem to be just right! Good FOV, good and clear, at the target and all the magnification I need at 200.

The Litschert is 15x and I use it on my German Schuetzen, for OH and my 30/40 Imp HW. I think it over performs for it's 15x. I can see 30 cal impacts @ 200 and shot this 10 shot group with it, in a match.

I was also there (3 bench's away) and as near as could determined, Terry double charged his engraved, cast Ballard. We think because he was having a conversation, while loading.

BUT, I personally believe it would not have been catastrophic if, the barrel would have been a chromemoly barrel. Instead, it was a StressProof, Darr barrel and that's why it split so bad.

Not to take anything away from the seriousness of what happened, but I am curious. Other than getting bent, did the rest of the fecker hold up or did it break lenses or anything? 

This also is a lesson in range etiquette. I hope all involved were ultimately ok.

Has any one of you attempted to up the power of a Lyman 438 FIELD ~scope or know someone who can do that~?  I can't afford any of the big buck externally adjustable scopes and do like the 438 except for its low power.  Converting it with lens changes to make it an 8X or 10X would be great.  I have 3 that I would convert if I could find someone who could do this.   
Lenses without any specific application are available and very reasonable in price so such a conversion would be practical and cost rffective~!

I have 1 Unertl, 1 Fecker, and 3 Lyman STS.
The Unertl is serial 171, a very early one and both it and the Fecker are very close in light transmission, both are 10X. The Lymans are all 1950's era and are also similar in light transmission even though two ar 15X and the 3rd is 20X.
The center adjust parallax on the Fecker is easier to adjust when shooting, it and the Unertl do not have distance markings on the adjustment but the Lymans do. The objective parallax adjustment on the Lymans is a bit easier to use than the Unertl for me.
When Litschert retired his son in law took over the business and the name changed to Davis. I have looked through both Litschert and Davis scopes and they appear very serviceable though I have never shot with one. They don't appear quite as bright as Fecker, Unertl, or Lyman.

I have way too many old target scopes, and from a large assortment of makers. I've found brightness to be mostly based on objective bell sizes. The larger the bell the brighter the field of view is.
My favorite of the well known makers are JW Fecker scopes. I think Fecker made some of the finest target scopes around, and I love the center focus. But Fecker wasn't the only one to use a center focus. AW Peterson also made scopes with a center focus, and may have done so before Fecker? My Hubalek scope is later around WWII and it adjusts like a Fecker, so he copied Fecker's design.
I have some old Malcolm, Sidle and Souther scopes, and both Souther and Sidle scopes have some of the finest optics I've ever looked through. Malcolms I own are good glass, but very small diameter tubes and need lots of ambient light.

Jonathan wrote on Feb 25^th, 2026 at 7:52pm:


I have no problem buying optics needing repairs or cleaning. The price needs to be adjusted for condition if they aren't perfect of course. But there are numerous resources to help you learn how to clean and repair crosshairs, or people to send them to for repairs. 

better to look good than shoot good   me to   art

Watch out Rick, I have a new lens in my right eye! 
Next week I home to get my new Miller killer 32 RKS high wall to the range for the first time.

I didn't get a chance to discuss your good idea of having a 2 day match with the 50 shot on Sunday only before Kurt scheduled a Saturday only match, sharing the range with the muzzle loaders at the far end, which worked out OK the last time we did it.  I will have to confirm everything with Kurt, but the match is mid April.
I will get a flyer out eventually.
Hope to see you there.

Jack

Good,
I thought it was only 1 day when I looked. I will text Kurt and recommend the 50 shot be on Sunday morning first thing. That way anyone will be experiencing the same conditions. That way things are going it may just be me and you.

The Japanese optical industry had it right when they farmed out lens grinding to small mom & pop shops. Precision optical lens grinding was an established profession in Japan since WWII and perhaps prior. After the war Japanese established MITI  ( Ministery of International Trade & Industry ) which oversaw trade, policy and quality. Lens grinders fell under their control. The practice was to place orders from several known quality grinders then pick out the best or all but don't put all your eggs in one basket.  Those that failed would get no more business. 

Our approach in the U.S. is to contract with one source and in so doing you are locked into one source, good or bad. Yes we use QA but when there are completion timelines we more than often just have to bite the bullet and take less than perfect or spend more in court. With small independent shops they essentially control the QA knowing failure means closing their doors. If a sole source goes on strike, has a fire or other casualty they become the weak link in the manufacturing chain. Small independent lens grinding shops reduce or eliminate this risk and yield better results. Caveat: much of this has changed with computer controlled equipment but older Japanese lenses are generally high quality and still needed for final polish. 

In the 90's living in CA and NH my Wife ( 42 yrs aerospace QA engineer )  met and we took in a sort of engineering German exchange student who worked for Schott AG of Germany. They are the premier specialty glass maker for medical, astronomy, aerospace etc.. She had a grant to attend UCLA and MIT developing glass for satellite wave guides. Their glass was used by B&L in NY and several firms in Japan for various lens applications after WWII. I asked her once about rifle and spotting scopes and whether Unertl, Fecker or other high end scope makers used their lens glass. She said Schott kept scrupulous records from 1879 when they started. She would ask somebody back in Germany about my inquiry. Sure enough Schott had entries for "JUOC" John Unertl from the 1950's forward. She explained that no Schott glass left Germany during the war. 

Just thought this may be of interest
Rick

The association of German and Japanese optical glass goes back to at least the start of WW2.  I've been interested in giant binoculars for a while.  I read that just before the war Zeiss sent 100,000 pounds of optical glass to the Japanese.  The Japanese used some of it to make giant binoculars placed on their Navy's ships.  Early in the war the allies were surprised at how early the Japanese were seeing them.  They captured a Japanese ship and found the giant binoculars and immediately started making them.