• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Collecting Bushnell/ Bausch & Lomb binoculars (3 Viewers)

I have one of the Tamron Rangemasters and like the standard porro style earlier Fuji models, it is pretty superb.

It is my feeling that Bushnell thought maybe it was time to tweak the old line porro design, so they flipped the prisms, as they had done with the smaller Custom series. This likely led to all sorts of "unnecessary new fangled crap" comments so it id not last, however it was also in the time of the roof explosion. My view is that it was a step taken to see if the design could be evolved to some degree or another. The Japanese had gotten the majority of the mileage to be gotten with the porro. The roof reigns supreme in the minds of most viewers, so I'll be surprised to see anything done with new glass and coatings in the old time WA porro designs.

One thing for sure, the Tamron model is pretty huge. But the original Fuji's were not very much smaller. Those prisms are at least twice the size of a more typical porro of the 7x35 size range, reduce the size of the Rangemaster and you have a completely run of the mill JTTI 7x35.

They were produced until 1973. There are several stories about special forces military use in Vietnam. It was not a widely purchased military unit and those used were lilely purchased individually by soldiers who used them. Hard to fathom an open porro lasting long in jungle use.

I posted a review of both models here a few years ago. It went on for a long time with lots of views and comments. It's here, but I'm not doing the searching.
 
Last edited:
Tamron Rangemaster = 1.025kg

Excuse the geekiness but I got those kitchen scales and just weighed the naked Tamron Rangemaster 7x35 - it smashed the 1000 gram barrier -
1025g
2lb 4oz
I'd be fascinated to know if a more nuggety 7x35 exists.(?)
That's 4 grams heavier than the porky old school Zeiss 8x56 bgatp

The Rangemaster 7x35 10deg silver ring model comes in at 930 grams



For reference - on the same scales

Nikon 10x35 Ell = 615 grams
Nikon 8x30 Ell = 560 grams
Habicht 8x30 = 555 grams
Zeiss 7x42 bgatp = 800 grams
Zeiss 8x56 bgatp = 1021 grams
A six sided dice = 6 grams
One of my single size 13 boots = 1.18kg

Cheers
Rathaus
 
Last edited:
I have one of these, a little beaten up, but great optics. I have two other Rangemasters, an FPO and one of the very rare 'Early Tamron' . I paid $29.95, $10 inc. tax! and $69.95 respectively for these three. I tested them for FOVs one night using the 'Big Dipper' method and they all gave the stated figures.
 
Thanks for all the great info on this thread. I lucked out and bought a pair of Bausch & Lomb 7x50 binos for $9.99 and have determined they are from 1944 (VZ920). They do not have any military stamp or writing but that area may have been painted over ???? If not, does that mean this is a pair not made for the miltary? Also, the case is old and blue, but is a form of vinyl (fake leather) over cardboard. Is that the original and/or any indicator of who the were made for (military vs non-military)? Thanks
 
Thanks for all the great info on this thread. I lucked out and bought a pair of Bausch & Lomb 7x50 binos for $9.99 and have determined they are from 1944 (VZ920). They do not have any military stamp or writing but that area may have been painted over ???? If not, does that mean this is a pair not made for the miltary? Also, the case is old and blue, but is a form of vinyl (fake leather) over cardboard. Is that the original and/or any indicator of who the were made for (military vs non-military)? Thanks

It is not uncommon for binos from that era to have had their backplates replaced more than once. You need new backplates and don't have time to wait for painting and drying time. BUT, you just took 10 out of the drying oven that will be cool in just minutes; problem solved. Also, early on, the military was supplied with straight consumer instruments. I once own a B&L 7x50 in a leather case-with a tripod bracket already fastened to the axle. It was SO NEW the leather was still fuzzy. I took it to Captain's to show it off. But, while there it seems someone thought they needed it more than me. I miss it. It was what became the Navy's Mk 28 and the Army's Mk 15.

Once the war cranked up, the navy MOSTLY HAD black, hard rubber cases and the army had MOSTLY Leatherette or leather cases. :cat:

Bill
 
hello yall i am happy i just bought a zephyr 7x35 b&l rochester by today for $10 i'm so happy can't wait to use them serial wg9022 could someone link me to the model type
 
I'm just going to jump in here and wish you a warm welcome to you from those of us on staff here at BirdForum (y)
We're glad you found us and please join in wherever you like ;)
 
hello yall i am happy i just bought a zephyr 7x35 b&l rochester by today for $10 i'm so happy can't wait to use them serial wg9022 could someone link me to the model type
Hello pmwfotos,

You have a 1948 model of the Zephyr, which should have coated optics.

Stay safe,
Arthur
 
Dating B&L Optics
On various places on the net, there is a list that shows how to date B&L products for the period 1941 to 1986, by using the alphabetic prefix and then later the suffix in the serial number e.g. see post #19 above.

There's also an expanded version that shows the use of the second alphabetic designator, see an attached copy. This version was compiled in 1997 by Steve Stayton - who likely also complied the more common abbreviated version (?)
The full version can be found on Anna and Terry Vacani’s site at: Bausch&Lomb prod list


John
 

Attachments

  • B&L Dating 1941 to 1986, Steve Stayton.jpg
    B&L Dating 1941 to 1986, Steve Stayton.jpg
    364.7 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 3 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top