I found one in my gear that I really have no use for. I had it checked out by an "expert" and he said it was a legit. It has the original mount that "Cams" the tube up and down. Whats something like that worth?
- Thread starter microsuck
- Start date
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Pictures, Pictures,
I'd be interested if its the orginal ART Leatherwood used on the Vietnam/Post Vietnam Era M21s.
Anything like this one, the ARTs used in the USAMU Sniper School of the '70s.
Pictures, Pictures,
I'd be interested if its the orginal ART Leatherwood used on the Vietnam/Post Vietnam Era M21s.
Anything like this one, the ARTs used in the USAMU Sniper School of the '70s.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Yep. Looks just like that one. I will post pictures tonight, to aid in the identification.
Yep. Looks just like that one. I will post pictures tonight, to aid in the identification.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Yup, looks like an ART. Stood for Adjustable Ranging Telescope.
The Leatherwood ART scopes were a neat idea... but never quite worked in practice as well as the theory suggests. They did dial in, but the cams were susceptable to lack of lubrication, wear, grit, etc. Not as good as a set of turrets and a data book. But were used with the M21, which was essentially an M14 with scope.
They aren't super-valuable, but have an interesting collector value for folks who are into the '60s gear. They make a nice accessory on an M14/M1A.
I have an ART scope with all its paperwork, box, etc. It's on my M1A. I think I paid a couple of hundred for it, more for novelty value, as it's not a rifle I use much. But the Leatherwood looks just right mounted on the rifle!!!
I'll post a pic if anyone is interested...
Cheers,
Sirhr
Yup, looks like an ART. Stood for Adjustable Ranging Telescope.
The Leatherwood ART scopes were a neat idea... but never quite worked in practice as well as the theory suggests. They did dial in, but the cams were susceptable to lack of lubrication, wear, grit, etc. Not as good as a set of turrets and a data book. But were used with the M21, which was essentially an M14 with scope.
They aren't super-valuable, but have an interesting collector value for folks who are into the '60s gear. They make a nice accessory on an M14/M1A.
I have an ART scope with all its paperwork, box, etc. It's on my M1A. I think I paid a couple of hundred for it, more for novelty value, as it's not a rifle I use much. But the Leatherwood looks just right mounted on the rifle!!!
I'll post a pic if anyone is interested...
Cheers,
Sirhr
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Just the scope, or the base mount also? Does yours have an "X" prefix on it?
Which reticle is in yours, there were several designs.
There's one in a pawn shop in Mena Ar. that's got a $250.00 price tag on it, an original. Been there for years, but does not have the base.
Just the scope, or the base mount also? Does yours have an "X" prefix on it?
Which reticle is in yours, there were several designs.
There's one in a pawn shop in Mena Ar. that's got a $250.00 price tag on it, an original. Been there for years, but does not have the base.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Here are some pics. Whatcha think?
Here are some pics. Whatcha think?
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Microsuck, thats the real Mccoy right there, early Redfield AR TEL scope and mount with the oversized thumbscrew. These were the scopes used on the XM21 during the Vietnam war, probably less than 2000 of these scopes were ever made according to various publicised sources.
Microsuck, thats the real Mccoy right there, early Redfield AR TEL scope and mount with the oversized thumbscrew. These were the scopes used on the XM21 during the Vietnam war, probably less than 2000 of these scopes were ever made according to various publicised sources.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
WOW. An ART-1 in fantastic shape. Serial doesn't match the mount, but that doesn't matter if you're actually going to shoot it.
The ART is very simple and very fast. It was probably the best option for the time, but it was a bit delicate for infantry privates and the realities of combat.
With the hard case they're even more rare. I remember when the CMP sold these at surplus -- the price was ridiculous and I should have bought a few.
She's a real beauty!
WOW. An ART-1 in fantastic shape. Serial doesn't match the mount, but that doesn't matter if you're actually going to shoot it.
The ART is very simple and very fast. It was probably the best option for the time, but it was a bit delicate for infantry privates and the realities of combat.
With the hard case they're even more rare. I remember when the CMP sold these at surplus -- the price was ridiculous and I should have bought a few.
She's a real beauty!
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Thanks. I would rather see it go to someone who will appreciate it.
Yes, I do plan on listing it here for sale. With the mount and case. After I determine whats a fair asking price. Any idea what it will go for?
Thanks. I would rather see it go to someone who will appreciate it.
Yes, I do plan on listing it here for sale. With the mount and case. After I determine whats a fair asking price. Any idea what it will go for?
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Pretty cool scope. I have the civilian version of the ART scope. I wasn't sure what it was for the longest time because I couldn't find one to compare it to. And since it had been out of production for quite some time, there weren't many pictures around.
Pretty cool scope. I have the civilian version of the ART scope. I wasn't sure what it was for the longest time because I couldn't find one to compare it to. And since it had been out of production for quite some time, there weren't many pictures around.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
I am sending you a pm. I am very familiar with these. I grew up hunting on James leatherwoods family ranch. More in the pm. Dave
I am sending you a pm. I am very familiar with these. I grew up hunting on James leatherwoods family ranch. More in the pm. Dave
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
I must beg to differ on value. If it's a Redfield AR Tel scope, like one of the gents above said, there were only about 2000 of them produced and I'd say considerably less of them circulating. Correction on calling it an ART I, wrong but it's a common mistake. It is an AR Tel. The ART II was a Leatherwood scope that came out late late Vietnam and into the '70s. Many more ART IIs out there.
Don't be concerned about the mount's serial number not matching the scope, it's not supposed to. The serial number on the mount is the last 4 digits of the weapon's serial number it was mounted to. Since the keys on the inside of the mount deform providing a custom fit to the first rifle it's mounted on, they are permanently married by stamping the last 4 from the weapon on the scope mount. This way they are mated up when the AR Tel is switched out for a PVS-2 and then back again.
Value? They commonly sell for $1800 to $2600 dollars and only show up once or twice a year.
My Devine TX Springfield Armory XM21, totally period correct including the epoxy impregnated stock.
I must beg to differ on value. If it's a Redfield AR Tel scope, like one of the gents above said, there were only about 2000 of them produced and I'd say considerably less of them circulating. Correction on calling it an ART I, wrong but it's a common mistake. It is an AR Tel. The ART II was a Leatherwood scope that came out late late Vietnam and into the '70s. Many more ART IIs out there.
Don't be concerned about the mount's serial number not matching the scope, it's not supposed to. The serial number on the mount is the last 4 digits of the weapon's serial number it was mounted to. Since the keys on the inside of the mount deform providing a custom fit to the first rifle it's mounted on, they are permanently married by stamping the last 4 from the weapon on the scope mount. This way they are mated up when the AR Tel is switched out for a PVS-2 and then back again.
Value? They commonly sell for $1800 to $2600 dollars and only show up once or twice a year.
My Devine TX Springfield Armory XM21, totally period correct including the epoxy impregnated stock.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EODsix</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I must beg to differ on value. If it's a Redfield AR Tel scope, like one of the gents above said, there were only about 2000 of them produced and I'd say considerably less of them circulating. Correction on calling it an ART I, wrong but it's a common mistake. It is an AR Tel. The ART II was a Leatherwood scope that came out late late Vietnam and into the '70s. Many more ART IIs out there.
Don't be concerned about the mount's serial number not matching the scope, it's not supposed to. The serial number on the mount is the last 4 digits of the weapon's serial number it was mounted to. Since the keys on the inside of the mount deform providing a custom fit to the first rifle it's mounted on, they are permanently married by stamping the last 4 from the weapon on the scope mount. This way they are mated up when the AR Tel is switched out for a PVS-2 and then back again.
Value? They commonly sell for $1800 to $2600 dollars and only show up once or twice a year.
My Devine TX Springfield Armory XM21, totally period correct including the epoxy impregnated stock.
</div></div>
EODsix,
Some clarification if you could help. The AR Tel, is the 'made by Redfield' we see in the picture. Is this not the idea that Leatherwood patented? Did Redfield build the first 2k of them, then Leatherwood assume the building of them with his own manufacturing facility? The reason I ask is I have seen scopes that said ART on them. Were those civilian?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EODsix</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I must beg to differ on value. If it's a Redfield AR Tel scope, like one of the gents above said, there were only about 2000 of them produced and I'd say considerably less of them circulating. Correction on calling it an ART I, wrong but it's a common mistake. It is an AR Tel. The ART II was a Leatherwood scope that came out late late Vietnam and into the '70s. Many more ART IIs out there.
Don't be concerned about the mount's serial number not matching the scope, it's not supposed to. The serial number on the mount is the last 4 digits of the weapon's serial number it was mounted to. Since the keys on the inside of the mount deform providing a custom fit to the first rifle it's mounted on, they are permanently married by stamping the last 4 from the weapon on the scope mount. This way they are mated up when the AR Tel is switched out for a PVS-2 and then back again.
Value? They commonly sell for $1800 to $2600 dollars and only show up once or twice a year.
My Devine TX Springfield Armory XM21, totally period correct including the epoxy impregnated stock.
EODsix,
Some clarification if you could help. The AR Tel, is the 'made by Redfield' we see in the picture. Is this not the idea that Leatherwood patented? Did Redfield build the first 2k of them, then Leatherwood assume the building of them with his own manufacturing facility? The reason I ask is I have seen scopes that said ART on them. Were those civilian?
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Hi EOD:
I won't disagree that the early scopes are worth more than the later ART scopes. But I know that some of the early scopes were for sale through DCM for very short money a few years ago. Someone above echoed my thoughts... "Wish I had bought them all."
So I don't have a current value for the Redfield that the OP has or I would have provided one. They are definitely not commonly on the market.
Also, when I posted, we had a fuzzy distant picture. Clearly more info now.
In terms of variants... there were Leatherwood ART scopes. Redfield AR-TEL's. And ART II's, which are pretty much just a modern knock-off.
Be interesting to do a table with all the values!
Anyway, good thoughts above. I won't disagree with EOD, but can't provide my own confirmation of prices for the Redfields. Hope to go to Tulsa this fall and if one shows up, it would be there. That might give a good price indicator. Or Ebay or GB.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Hi EOD:
I won't disagree that the early scopes are worth more than the later ART scopes. But I know that some of the early scopes were for sale through DCM for very short money a few years ago. Someone above echoed my thoughts... "Wish I had bought them all."
So I don't have a current value for the Redfield that the OP has or I would have provided one. They are definitely not commonly on the market.
Also, when I posted, we had a fuzzy distant picture. Clearly more info now.
In terms of variants... there were Leatherwood ART scopes. Redfield AR-TEL's. And ART II's, which are pretty much just a modern knock-off.
Be interesting to do a table with all the values!
Anyway, good thoughts above. I won't disagree with EOD, but can't provide my own confirmation of prices for the Redfields. Hope to go to Tulsa this fall and if one shows up, it would be there. That might give a good price indicator. Or Ebay or GB.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Sirhrmechanic,
I'm pretty sure they were ART II's on our guys rifles (M-21's) in the early 80's.
Sirhrmechanic,
I'm pretty sure they were ART II's on our guys rifles (M-21's) in the early 80's.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
I won't say that Jim Leatherwood didn't have a hand in the design of the AR Tel by Redfield, the ranging concept with subtensions and variable power may well have been Leatherwood's idea however the AR Tels precede any of Leatherwood's ART scopes. I just recently sold a US Army Leatherwood ART II that was engraved on the turret as "ART II" but the data plate with the serial number merely said "ART" This could be where folks get mixed up. The confusion is easy to understand, after all, AR Tel is short for Automatic Ranging Telescope just as ART is and if there is an ART II then there must have been an ART I right? Well there never was one that was marked as "ART I".
Yes Redfield made all the AR Tel scopes, their trademark is clearly embossed around the eyepiece. Leatherwood produced the ART/ART IIs and later the ART/MPC and so on. Leatherwood ART II scopes were used on M21s from the 1970s way up into the 1990's by the US Army.
This is my other Devine with the ART II I mentioned earlier.
I won't say that Jim Leatherwood didn't have a hand in the design of the AR Tel by Redfield, the ranging concept with subtensions and variable power may well have been Leatherwood's idea however the AR Tels precede any of Leatherwood's ART scopes. I just recently sold a US Army Leatherwood ART II that was engraved on the turret as "ART II" but the data plate with the serial number merely said "ART" This could be where folks get mixed up. The confusion is easy to understand, after all, AR Tel is short for Automatic Ranging Telescope just as ART is and if there is an ART II then there must have been an ART I right? Well there never was one that was marked as "ART I".
Yes Redfield made all the AR Tel scopes, their trademark is clearly embossed around the eyepiece. Leatherwood produced the ART/ART IIs and later the ART/MPC and so on. Leatherwood ART II scopes were used on M21s from the 1970s way up into the 1990's by the US Army.
This is my other Devine with the ART II I mentioned earlier.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
The Redfield with the window rangefinder is nowhere near what the original GI ART did with the external cam.
The Redfield's internal "Rangefinder" (as the Marines and Air Force used on the M40) just gave a rough distance-to-target and I do not believe it compensated for drop as the ART.
GI vernacular gave us the "ART." ART II was a Leatherwood designation (possibly big Army as well).
The USAMU had original ARTs on the school M21s through at least December 1982, while the ones I had in my scout platoon in Korea (December 1982 - August 83) were ART IIs.
Half didn't work and had condensation on the inside of the eyepiece and objective lenses.
I didn't like the ART II nearly as much as the original ART -- the ranging feature had changed to use the thickness of the external duplex cross hair "Bar," as it was supposed to be E-type silhouette or 1 Meter high.
While most M21s had the epoxy impregnated wood stock some had McMillans. This photo was from a long time ago:
The Redfield with the window rangefinder is nowhere near what the original GI ART did with the external cam.
The Redfield's internal "Rangefinder" (as the Marines and Air Force used on the M40) just gave a rough distance-to-target and I do not believe it compensated for drop as the ART.
GI vernacular gave us the "ART." ART II was a Leatherwood designation (possibly big Army as well).
The USAMU had original ARTs on the school M21s through at least December 1982, while the ones I had in my scout platoon in Korea (December 1982 - August 83) were ART IIs.
Half didn't work and had condensation on the inside of the eyepiece and objective lenses.
I didn't like the ART II nearly as much as the original ART -- the ranging feature had changed to use the thickness of the external duplex cross hair "Bar," as it was supposed to be E-type silhouette or 1 Meter high.
While most M21s had the epoxy impregnated wood stock some had McMillans. This photo was from a long time ago:
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Oh yea you bring to mind there were several variations on the Redfield scope as well before they finally decided on the AR Tel which is what is on your scope at Ft Benning. I'm away from home this weekend so I don't have my research material but I can think of at least 3 versions of the Redfield scopes used on M14s in Vietnam. Redfield 3-9x, Redfield Tracker and another one I can't place but yea, the only Redfield that actually compensated for drop was the AR Tel with the M118 elevation cam mated to the power zoom ring. The author of this thread Microsuck shows some very good close ups of the AR Tel/ART scope. You are correct, big Army gave us the "ART" name for the AR Tel scope. None of the manuals from 1968 refer to the AR Tel as such. The Sniper Training FM23-10 from 1994 does refer to the AR Tel scope as ART I so I stand corrected there but we're talking about a manual and not engraving or data plates or even logistical nomenclature.
Nice pic from Benning, I'd just left there for the first time in August that year.
Oh yea you bring to mind there were several variations on the Redfield scope as well before they finally decided on the AR Tel which is what is on your scope at Ft Benning. I'm away from home this weekend so I don't have my research material but I can think of at least 3 versions of the Redfield scopes used on M14s in Vietnam. Redfield 3-9x, Redfield Tracker and another one I can't place but yea, the only Redfield that actually compensated for drop was the AR Tel with the M118 elevation cam mated to the power zoom ring. The author of this thread Microsuck shows some very good close ups of the AR Tel/ART scope. You are correct, big Army gave us the "ART" name for the AR Tel scope. None of the manuals from 1968 refer to the AR Tel as such. The Sniper Training FM23-10 from 1994 does refer to the AR Tel scope as ART I so I stand corrected there but we're talking about a manual and not engraving or data plates or even logistical nomenclature.
Nice pic from Benning, I'd just left there for the first time in August that year.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Officially the ART was "Sniper scope with mount" per TC 23-14, October 1969. We knew it was an ART so that's what we called it.
Officially the ART was "Sniper scope with mount" per TC 23-14, October 1969. We knew it was an ART so that's what we called it.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Redfield with the window rangefinder is nowhere near what the original GI ART did with the external cam.
The Redfield's internal "Rangefinder" (as the Marines and Air Force used on the M40) just gave a rough distance-to-target and I do not believe it compensated for drop as the ART.
GI vernacular gave us the "ART." ART II was a Leatherwood designation (possibly big Army as well).
The USAMU had original ARTs on the school M21s through at least December 1982, while the ones I had in my scout platoon in Korea (December 1982 - August 83) were ART IIs.
Half didn't work and had condensation on the inside of the eyepiece and objective lenses.
I didn't like the ART II nearly as much as the original ART -- the ranging feature had changed to use the thickness of the external duplex cross hair "Bar," as it was supposed to be E-type silhouette or 1 Meter high.
While most M21s had the epoxy impregnated wood stock some had McMillans. This photo was from a long time ago:
</div></div>
That makes sense then. The AR Tel, being Redfield, and the "ART" being Leatherwood. They would not have called it an ART I unless they knew there was to be an ART II to come along. Which, they didn't.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Redfield with the window rangefinder is nowhere near what the original GI ART did with the external cam.
The Redfield's internal "Rangefinder" (as the Marines and Air Force used on the M40) just gave a rough distance-to-target and I do not believe it compensated for drop as the ART.
GI vernacular gave us the "ART." ART II was a Leatherwood designation (possibly big Army as well).
The USAMU had original ARTs on the school M21s through at least December 1982, while the ones I had in my scout platoon in Korea (December 1982 - August 83) were ART IIs.
Half didn't work and had condensation on the inside of the eyepiece and objective lenses.
I didn't like the ART II nearly as much as the original ART -- the ranging feature had changed to use the thickness of the external duplex cross hair "Bar," as it was supposed to be E-type silhouette or 1 Meter high.
While most M21s had the epoxy impregnated wood stock some had McMillans. This photo was from a long time ago:
That makes sense then. The AR Tel, being Redfield, and the "ART" being Leatherwood. They would not have called it an ART I unless they knew there was to be an ART II to come along. Which, they didn't.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
As I mentioned above this is an original Redfield AR TEL scope made for the XM21 during the Vietnam war. These scopes were developed by Jim Leatherwood and the Limited Warfare lab with a lot of help from the folks at AMTU. The original scopes used came from Redfield and were called AR TEL, I guess the name came from Adjustable ranging telescope and they shortened it. Leatherwood then joined forces with Realist and they tried marketing a 3-9 to the military and even though the scope got high marks it was not adopted. Leatherwood eventually bought Realists scope business in the mid seventies, by the late seventies (1979) he was selling his scopes to the military, the ART II as we know it today. The Army was calling these scopes the ART series as far back as 1965 and some of the early scopes that went to Vietnam were the old Redfield 3-9 marked 1 inch tube, similar to the green Redfield Accurange of USMC fame. The actual scopes adopted and pictured by Micorsuck are the gen 2 version of the Redfield 3-9.
As I mentioned above this is an original Redfield AR TEL scope made for the XM21 during the Vietnam war. These scopes were developed by Jim Leatherwood and the Limited Warfare lab with a lot of help from the folks at AMTU. The original scopes used came from Redfield and were called AR TEL, I guess the name came from Adjustable ranging telescope and they shortened it. Leatherwood then joined forces with Realist and they tried marketing a 3-9 to the military and even though the scope got high marks it was not adopted. Leatherwood eventually bought Realists scope business in the mid seventies, by the late seventies (1979) he was selling his scopes to the military, the ART II as we know it today. The Army was calling these scopes the ART series as far back as 1965 and some of the early scopes that went to Vietnam were the old Redfield 3-9 marked 1 inch tube, similar to the green Redfield Accurange of USMC fame. The actual scopes adopted and pictured by Micorsuck are the gen 2 version of the Redfield 3-9.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mjh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I mentioned above this is an original Redfield AR TEL scope made for the XM21 during the Vietnam war. These scopes were developed by Jim Leatherwood and the Limited Warfare lab with a lot of help from the folks at AMTU. The original scopes used came from Redfield and were called AR TEL, I guess the name came from Adjustable ranging telescope and they shortened it. Leatherwood then joined forces with Realist and they tried marketing a 3-9 to the military and even though the scope got high marks it was not adopted. Leatherwood eventually bought Realists scope business in the mid seventies, by the late seventies (1979) he was selling his scopes to the military, the ART II as we know it today. The Army was calling these scopes the ART series as far back as 1965 and some of the early scopes that went to Vietnam were the old Redfield 3-9 marked 1 inch tube, similar to the green Redfield Accurange of USMC fame. The actual scopes adopted and pictured by Micorsuck are the gen 2 version of the Redfield 3-9.</div></div>
Thanks mjh, That answers my questions.
Sinister,
Somehow, my edit didn't make it through this afternoon. I was in Ft. Benning at that time going through Ranger School. I had just gone through Basic/AIT and Airborne, the year previous.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mjh</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I mentioned above this is an original Redfield AR TEL scope made for the XM21 during the Vietnam war. These scopes were developed by Jim Leatherwood and the Limited Warfare lab with a lot of help from the folks at AMTU. The original scopes used came from Redfield and were called AR TEL, I guess the name came from Adjustable ranging telescope and they shortened it. Leatherwood then joined forces with Realist and they tried marketing a 3-9 to the military and even though the scope got high marks it was not adopted. Leatherwood eventually bought Realists scope business in the mid seventies, by the late seventies (1979) he was selling his scopes to the military, the ART II as we know it today. The Army was calling these scopes the ART series as far back as 1965 and some of the early scopes that went to Vietnam were the old Redfield 3-9 marked 1 inch tube, similar to the green Redfield Accurange of USMC fame. The actual scopes adopted and pictured by Micorsuck are the gen 2 version of the Redfield 3-9.</div></div>
Thanks mjh, That answers my questions.
Sinister,
Somehow, my edit didn't make it through this afternoon. I was in Ft. Benning at that time going through Ranger School. I had just gone through Basic/AIT and Airborne, the year previous.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
I stand corrected on one of my posts above. I mentioned there were several Redfield scopes that were used on the XM21 and mentioned the name Tracker, I was wrong. The first scope that was used AFTER they determined the the 2.5x M84 scope from the M1D was inadequate, was a glossy black commercial Redfield marked "Redfield 3x9" and then a later model was the same scope marked "Redfield 1" Tube". These scopes had modified crosshairs and a rudimentary cam affixed to the power zoom ring. The Redfield AR Tel was the first military contract scope that Redfield factory produced using the design innovations of Jim Leatherwood.
The ART I was a Realist/Leatherwood hybrid that Jim Leatherwood produced after he left the Army but this scope was never adopted. The ART II was Leatherwood's next attempt and it was adopted for use on the then standardized M21 SWS. XM21s were then accepted as M21s but some continued to use the AR Tel and some were outfitted with ART IIs.
In the later years of the M21, Leupold developed the Ultra M2A and M3A that were to be used on the Brookfield Precision Tool scope mount. The M2A featured and inverted Christmas tree style rangefinding crosshair and the M3A the round mil dots. Big Army opted not to use the M2A and as it was difficult for Leupold to produce that fancy crosshair they discontinued its manufacture. To my knowledge, only a few M21s were ever outfitted with the M3A. They were used when the M21s were converted/updated to XM25/M25s.
Getting back to the subject, there is an AR Tel on eBay today selling for $5995!!! Never seen one go for that much and it's not in all that good of shape. My recollection is that in the past couple of years, AR Tel's have sold from $1800 to $2600.
I stand corrected on one of my posts above. I mentioned there were several Redfield scopes that were used on the XM21 and mentioned the name Tracker, I was wrong. The first scope that was used AFTER they determined the the 2.5x M84 scope from the M1D was inadequate, was a glossy black commercial Redfield marked "Redfield 3x9" and then a later model was the same scope marked "Redfield 1" Tube". These scopes had modified crosshairs and a rudimentary cam affixed to the power zoom ring. The Redfield AR Tel was the first military contract scope that Redfield factory produced using the design innovations of Jim Leatherwood.
The ART I was a Realist/Leatherwood hybrid that Jim Leatherwood produced after he left the Army but this scope was never adopted. The ART II was Leatherwood's next attempt and it was adopted for use on the then standardized M21 SWS. XM21s were then accepted as M21s but some continued to use the AR Tel and some were outfitted with ART IIs.
In the later years of the M21, Leupold developed the Ultra M2A and M3A that were to be used on the Brookfield Precision Tool scope mount. The M2A featured and inverted Christmas tree style rangefinding crosshair and the M3A the round mil dots. Big Army opted not to use the M2A and as it was difficult for Leupold to produce that fancy crosshair they discontinued its manufacture. To my knowledge, only a few M21s were ever outfitted with the M3A. They were used when the M21s were converted/updated to XM25/M25s.
Getting back to the subject, there is an AR Tel on eBay today selling for $5995!!! Never seen one go for that much and it's not in all that good of shape. My recollection is that in the past couple of years, AR Tel's have sold from $1800 to $2600.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
The Army never standardized the XM25/M25 -- this was a pure Special Forces project starting at the 10th Special Forces Group. Eventually some "XM25s" available from the SOCOM Joint Operational Stocks were equipped with the Bausch and Lomb 10x40 telescope.
Big Army went from the M21/ART II to the M24 equipped with the M3A.
The Army never standardized the XM25/M25 -- this was a pure Special Forces project starting at the 10th Special Forces Group. Eventually some "XM25s" available from the SOCOM Joint Operational Stocks were equipped with the Bausch and Lomb 10x40 telescope.
Big Army went from the M21/ART II to the M24 equipped with the M3A.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Have been watching AR Tels for a while--
$800 w/o base.
~$1200 w/ fogging or ratty base
~$1800 seems good
~>$2000 w/ SNd base and in super condition (or its the last part you need for an XM-21 build) (Serial numbers will be mounted on the face of the mount or the top of the mount.) Likely, the SNd bases saw service during or after the war. Actually, you'd probably be better off finding one without the SN because it was probably never taken out of depot.
Three recommendations when getting the AR Tels:
1) Once the base goes kaput (main screw won't stay in receiver or the pinion "pin" works itself loose in the aluminum, it takes a lot of machining to get it to a shootable condition. Even with a good base:
a) The 50-year old flatspring that pushes the ring base will be weak which will create some small variations in elevation changes based on the camming mechanism.
b) You'll want rubber bands to hold down the scope on the mount through recoil (they did this in Vietnam too). Otherwise, you are going to get a ~1-2 MOA shifts of elevation variation in your strings. You want the rubber bands to exert a few pounds of pressure so that they pull the scope down on the cam screw.
c) The main screw that mounts the base to the rifle WILL work loose. Then you'll get all sorts of horizontal variation. Carefully use a strap wrench and blue loctite.
2) Most of the AR Tels have been exposed to solvents--which may or may not get into the optics and cause fogging--requires a LONG trip to Ironsight to fix.
3) Zero at 300Y on your lowest mag or the scope camming adjustments won't make any sense. Or, zero at 300Y with your highest mag and know your holdover points.
The scope is capable of <1 MOA precision even with the moving parts, but you'll have to be creative with the reticle since its an open design.
Then, all you have to do is find a resin-impregnated stock, SAK NM barrel, TRW other stuff, and a really good M14 gunsmith.
When the components are working--its one of the fastest systems to use... arguably superior to any system of its day. But, when something is wrong, its an utter PITA to troubleshoot because of the moving parts on the mount.
Like all vintage projects--you'll gain a really healthy respect for the drivers and armorers who kept these running in their day.
Have been watching AR Tels for a while--
$800 w/o base.
~$1200 w/ fogging or ratty base
~$1800 seems good
~>$2000 w/ SNd base and in super condition (or its the last part you need for an XM-21 build) (Serial numbers will be mounted on the face of the mount or the top of the mount.) Likely, the SNd bases saw service during or after the war. Actually, you'd probably be better off finding one without the SN because it was probably never taken out of depot.
Three recommendations when getting the AR Tels:
1) Once the base goes kaput (main screw won't stay in receiver or the pinion "pin" works itself loose in the aluminum, it takes a lot of machining to get it to a shootable condition. Even with a good base:
a) The 50-year old flatspring that pushes the ring base will be weak which will create some small variations in elevation changes based on the camming mechanism.
b) You'll want rubber bands to hold down the scope on the mount through recoil (they did this in Vietnam too). Otherwise, you are going to get a ~1-2 MOA shifts of elevation variation in your strings. You want the rubber bands to exert a few pounds of pressure so that they pull the scope down on the cam screw.
c) The main screw that mounts the base to the rifle WILL work loose. Then you'll get all sorts of horizontal variation. Carefully use a strap wrench and blue loctite.
2) Most of the AR Tels have been exposed to solvents--which may or may not get into the optics and cause fogging--requires a LONG trip to Ironsight to fix.
3) Zero at 300Y on your lowest mag or the scope camming adjustments won't make any sense. Or, zero at 300Y with your highest mag and know your holdover points.
The scope is capable of <1 MOA precision even with the moving parts, but you'll have to be creative with the reticle since its an open design.
Then, all you have to do is find a resin-impregnated stock, SAK NM barrel, TRW other stuff, and a really good M14 gunsmith.
When the components are working--its one of the fastest systems to use... arguably superior to any system of its day. But, when something is wrong, its an utter PITA to troubleshoot because of the moving parts on the mount.
Like all vintage projects--you'll gain a really healthy respect for the drivers and armorers who kept these running in their day.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
XM21 trivia:
XM21 trivia:
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
Well it looks like I'm out of the game. I thought I wanted one but I've changed my mind. I'll stick to iron sights for my M1A and work on getting something I can use in the CMP Vintage Sniper Matches.
Looks like for the price the ART Scope and mounts I can get a dern good 03a4 which seems to be winning the Vintage Sniper Matches.
Thanks for all the information though.
Well it looks like I'm out of the game. I thought I wanted one but I've changed my mind. I'll stick to iron sights for my M1A and work on getting something I can use in the CMP Vintage Sniper Matches.
Looks like for the price the ART Scope and mounts I can get a dern good 03a4 which seems to be winning the Vintage Sniper Matches.
Thanks for all the information though.
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
It was the lower-cost brother to the ART-II and platform agnostic (you could put it on anything).
Here are some photos (the scope isn't in the base correctly -- the cam can't elevate the rear of the scope: http://www.gunauction.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=9541333
It was the lower-cost brother to the ART-II and platform agnostic (you could put it on anything).
Here are some photos (the scope isn't in the base correctly -- the cam can't elevate the rear of the scope: http://www.gunauction.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=9541333
Re: Whats an AR-TEL M21 scope actually worth?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone have any information on the later ART-MPC which was probably sold by Leatherwood?</div></div>
That's exactly what I have. Except I'd call it an improved ART, as that is the reticle style it uses.
This is a Leatherwood scope. And, it's for sale cheap ...Kraig...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grump</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone have any information on the later ART-MPC which was probably sold by Leatherwood?</div></div>
That's exactly what I have. Except I'd call it an improved ART, as that is the reticle style it uses.
This is a Leatherwood scope. And, it's for sale cheap ...Kraig...
That's a pretty good lesson. I actually had the opportunity to meet the brainchild of the M25 on a range at Carson back in 2004. I wish I had the chance to pick his brain.
Similar threads
