Bausch & Lomb "Scope Chief" - eyepiece

[Land_Owner]

Unexpected result.  What should I do now?  Replace or continue with repair?

Background
My 3x9 scope, pictured below (1 to 3), has an eyepiece that has "failed" (pic 4 and subject to argument - the rubber ripped off) after nearly forty (40) years of exemplary service.  I want to purchase a replacement eyepiece.  I removed the original eyepiece for measurements, and achieved an unexpected result (pics 5 to 7 - failed rubber noted).  The last picture (unnumbered) is a stock photo from the Net and an example of what I expected to replace. 

The long and extended exterior threaded portion of the eyepiece (pic 5) is "gummy" as are the interior threads on the scope.  That "gumminess" has probably kept the internal lenses from condensation fogging.  I expect continued exemplary performance from this scope, though I am wondering if after removal of its lens along with the eyepiece, has that deteriorated its performance?

OPTION A
Should I continue in an attempt to remove and replace just the "end cap" eyepiece?  Anyone have this "issue" with theirs?  I hate working around the lens in concern for scratching, dust, lint, hair, warping, knocking out of alignment, etc.

OPTION B
Should I leave it as is?  Perhaps "cover it" with one of the "flip type" scope covers and keep going?  This option doesn't fix the eyepiece problem, just covers it up.  I will have to reassure myself at the range that zero is still intact and watch for fogging (a ruined hunting day if it occurs), though with its construction, this scope has been in operation for almost 40 years with no fogging.  I do not know if this section of the lens system was ever "pressurized" with an inert gas, such as nitrogen, to preclude condensation.

OPTION C
Should I replace the scope?  If replacement is selected (a sad day), it will be with one of several inherited Leupold 3x9 scopes from my reloading, hunting, and shooting Mentor and readjustment on the rifle as required to achieve accuracy again.

[Graybeard]

now that you have opened the internals of the scope to the environment you will never again have a reliable non fogging scope again. It was nitrogen sealed at the factory to insure that and not it is no longer sealed.

I'm unsure from photos and description just why you took the ocular housing off but now that you have I'd retire it to a place of honor and put another scope on. Used to be folks who advertised in magazines to repair such and they were able to reseal them and refill with nitrogen.

I made my living reworking/rebuilding optics for the government for several years. Scopes were one of the things I worked on way back then. Even with that experience behind me I'd not have opened the scope to the environment.

Put a Leupold on and sight it in, just stick that old B&L back to a well deserved retirement and in your old age tell folks what a great old scope it was, until one day it wasn't any longer.

[Land_Owner]

I was trying to remove the outer ring only. I never suspected the interior was "stuck" to it. That the lens came off surprised me. How is nitrogen "purge" performed? In a pressurized cabinet while components are being screwed together? I like your suggestions.

[Graybeard]

Different manufacturers do it different ways but yes if there is no purge valve mostly by assembly in an enclosure I'd guess. I'm a great many years out of touch with the way things are done these days as my work on them was a very long time ago.

If it were a Leupold I'd tell you to send it back and they will fix it for you. But B&L is no more, taken over by Bushnell long ago and Bushnell has never had much of a warranty. I like their optics and most of what I have that aren't Leupold are Bushnell.

In the early days of my optics repair work most of the new lens we installed were B&L brand, in those days there simply was nothing better.

Our shop at the local army depot had a glass shop and they had the equipment to grind and polish lens and to coat them tho certainly not with the multi coatings so common these days.

[Lloyd Smale]

i have 3 2.5x8 scope chiefs and there all missing that rubber eye guard. Never bothered me. Like bill said now you have pretty much a useless scope. Might be good enough for a 22 that used as a plinker. Buy the way back in the 70s they were my favorite scope. Better optics then the vari x 2s of the day. They were made for bushnell by B&L

[neckisred]

Move on to one of the Leupolds you inherited from your Mentor. Think of him when you use it and make some new memories. And the next time you think you want to play scope repair man, ask a grown up first.     

[Land_Owner]

And the next time you think you want to play scope repair man, ask a grown up first.

Certainly read that as sarcasm.  Don't know where I would have turned for scope repair advice.  Never had an unintended consequence then?  What should have been and was expected to be "easy" turned into an unpredictable loss, which still may not be a loss as that is conjecture - unless you know something you are not telling.

[Lloyd Smale]

I think most of us who have been into guns for 40 or more years have at one time or another done the same exact thing. I know i have.

And the next time you think you want to play scope repair man, ask a grown up first.

Certainly read that as sarcasm.  Don't know where I would have turned for scope repair advice.  Never had an unintended consequence then?  What should have been and was expected to be "easy" turned into an unpredictable loss, which still may not be a loss as that is conjecture - unless you know something you are not telling.

[neckisred]

 [/quote] Certainly read that as sarcasm. [/quote]

  As you should have. "Ask a grown up first" was a phrase used by one of my mentor's and quite frequently by others in my circle. Yes I have broken/scrapped my fair share of things I just knew I could fix.

[Land_Owner]

I get that.  It's similar to my Mentor calling me a "knuckle head" for attemptting to do something that, at the time, seemed correct and reasonable to me, when I had not considered (or even thought to think of) the possible down side.  Having someone of reputable (repute-able or re-putable) experience seeing us into and through our "formative years", even respected web forum feedback as is this, is significantly better than groping in the dark.  Sometimes though, the darkness still finds its way inside.