15 replies to this topic

[Augustus]

I found one of these scopes a couple minutes from me in good working order for $75. Other than damage to the legs it looks fantastic. Were these made by Towa or Mizar? The mount bears a very strong resemblance to the Orion SkyView Deluxe, I must say.

There’s been a 312 on FB for ages north of me - does this have the same optics? Thinking of telling one of my friends to go get it

Will post pics later, on mobile. I still miss my Tak FC76, but this seems like a pretty good surrogate. Alas it’s cloudy all week…

Edited by Augustus, 26 November 2024 - 07:04 PM.

[CHASLX200]

Need a pic mick. My 310 was Mizar i got new in 1986.

[flywing1]

I found one of these scopes a couple minutes from me in good working order for $75. Other than damage to the legs it looks fantastic. Were these made by Towa or Mizar? The mount bears a very strong resemblance to the Orion SkyView Deluxe, I must say.

There’s been a 312 on FB for ages north of me - does this have the same optics? Thinking of telling one of my friends to go get it

Will post pics later, on mobile. I still miss my Tak FC76, but this seems like a pretty good surrogate. Alas it’s cloudy all week…

It’s a Mizar 80M, most likely on their SP mount. See their 1988 brochure below

 

https://yumarin7.sak...n/Mizar1988.pdf

 

Meade 312 is Towa made, generally Mizar is preferred? Not sure.

Edited by flywing1, 27 November 2024 - 07:38 AM.

[Bob S]

I had a Meade 320 back in the 1980's. It was Mizar. The optics were quite good, the mount had a slight wiggle to it, but it's sure worth $75. I think it was around $600 when it was new.

[highfnum]

What is difference between 310 and  320 models 

 

And don't post 10!

[apfever]

The Meade 320 was their top line 80mm Achro of the series. The scope, mount, and tripod were all Mizar production package. That is a super score for $75. 

I've had at least two (at the same time), maybe a third, not sure.  All long gone now.  Excellent scopes. 

Edited by apfever, 27 November 2024 - 04:36 PM.

[Bob S]

The 310 came on an altaz mount, the 320 was on an equatorial mount, the telescopes were the same 80mm f/11.

[CHASLX200]

What is difference between 310 and  320 models 

 

And don't post 10!

310 was Alt Az.  Optics were a killer and the mount junk that broke a month after i got it..

[John Higbee]

Got one of these for a friend of mine just getting into astronomy.  Found it at a consignment store in Mississippi eight years ago.  Quality Mizar construction from the optics through the mount and the robust tripod.  Beautiful images of the Moon, planets and some of the bigger deep space objects.  Was sorely tempted to keep it for myself!

 

Here's a good discussion on the 320:

 

https://www.cloudyni...-320-by-mizar/ 

 

Enjoy!  John

[Jon Isaacs]

310 was Alt Az.  Optics were a killer and the mount junk that broke a month after i got it..

 

I have owned three 310s.  I don't know how you broke the mount but I never had any issues and I do keep my scopes long enough to have issues.  

 

 

I was trying to remember what happened to my first two 310s..  We used them at work for imaging shockwaves using Schlieren photography.  The red and black thing on the pedestal mount is an ultra-high speed framing camera. It takes 16 images and it is capable of taking an image every 5 nano-seconds.  It cost around $400K.  

 

 

Jon

 

 

 

[CHASLX200]

 

I have owned three 310s.  I don't know how you broke the mount but I never hand any issues and I do keep my scopes long enough to have issues.  

 

 

 

I was trying to remember what happened to my first two 310s..  We used them at work for imaging shockwaves using Schlieren photography.  The red and black thing on the pedestal mount is an ultra-high speed framing camera. It takes 16 images and it is capable of taking an image every 5 nano-seconds.  It cost around $400K.  

 

 

 

Jon

 

 

 

 

Nothing i did. The pot metal snapped off on one of the slow mo's.  

[grif 678]

I had a 310 once, wish I still had it. I also had a Celestron  C-80 at the same time. These two scopes were suppose to be closely resembling each other. But the objective in the Meade 310 was much heavier and beefier than the Celestron. It seemed three times as thick, and it was much heavier. Wonder why the difference in the objectives on two scopes virtually alike in many ways. The images were pretty much the same, actually the Meade was better on deep sky objects like Orion. Orion was beautiful in the Meade.

[CHASLX200]

No way it could have been that much of a diff in a lens. 3 times thicker would be nuts.

[grif 678]

No way it could have been that much of a diff in a lens. 3 times thicker would be nuts.

There was a lot of difference in the thickness and weight. I remember taking the objectives off, and blowing off the insides, and the difference in the weight surprised me.

[CHASLX200]

There was a lot of difference in the thickness and weight. I remember taking the objectives off, and blowing off the insides, and the difference in the weight surprised me.

I had both scopes and never noticed anything weight wise or lens wise.

[starman876]

There was a lot of difference in the thickness and weight. I remember taking the objectives off, and blowing off the insides, and the difference in the weight surprised me.

I have noticed that with a lot of vintage scope.  It all depended on the contractor making the lenses.