Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

theres been alot of talk about the quality of redfield scopes since they have been bought by leupold...has anyone actually had a

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • platte river rat
    replied
    I have two of the new Redfields, no troubles so far, a very good knock-around scope with a great warranty. I agree with WAM on bases and rings, I prefer Burris bases and Signature rings.

    Leave a comment:


  • WA Mtnhunter
    replied
    Good bases and rings are the important link between the scope and rifle. Cheap or poorly designed and incorrectly installed mounts are the root cause of many shooting ills.

    Leave a comment:


  • scratchgolf72
    replied
    ill just stick with the leupolds...no reason to take the chance i suppose.

    Leave a comment:


  • DakotaMan
    replied
    I carried an OLD 1965 Redfield 3-9x on my main 25-06 hunting rifle for nearly 15 years. It was dropped in the water, down hill sides, on the concrete range floor, etc. and I don't think I had to re-zero it for at least 10 years and I shot about 5000 rounds a year from that rifle. I finally dropped it on an asphalt road when I slammed the emergency brake on and jumped out of the truck doing about 20 mph (thought I was stopped) to chase after a coyote that ran across the road right in front of me. That Redfield was a goner... bent tube with a chunk out of the bell! Missed the coyote too!

    I don't think the new Redfields are quite that good but they have't been on the planet long enough to know for sure unless someone wants to intentially beat the daylights out of their prized scope to find out. Since then I've used Leopolds and have NEVER had to re-zero for any reason over the last 30 years other than switching ammo. I've tortured them too... the worst being a few years ago, when I dropped my rifle/Leupold about 20 feet with no scope problem. I did fire a test shot to be sure it wasn't bent but as I suspected... it was a Leupold and was right on. If you don't hunt hard, run up and down mountains and you don't fall as much as I do, I am sure a Redfield would be just fine now that Leupold is making them. A person really should't torture a rifle scope the way I have but I hunt hard and want a Leuopold so I can keep hunting when **it happens. By the way, I use good mounts too.

    Leave a comment:


  • RES1956
    replied
    Ditto WAM. I'd rather spend the extra $100 for a Leupold and not have to wonder,,,,

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    It seems to be just the thing for a budget-minded shooter who doesn't need that last ounce of perfection for everyday hunting conditions. A good solid dependable scope made in the U.S.A. with a great warranty at a reasonable price.

    Leave a comment:


  • WA Mtnhunter
    replied
    If I were in the market for a cheap scope, the Redfield would be worthy of a look. But since I'm not, I'll pass.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moose1980
    replied
    I put one one my Ruger M77 on my .338 win mag for my moose hunt last year. I put 60 rounds through the gun at the range and the 61st came after 6 days of running around the Maine woods, through bogs and clear cuts and driving over 300 miles of very bad logging roads. No, its not a torture test, but it worked. Good enough that I've begun swapping out my other scopes for the Redfield.

    Leave a comment:


  • shane
    replied
    It's not just as good as a Leupold. You get what you pay for. The big deal with Redfields is that they are a Made in USA scope that is cheap and decent. That didn't exist a few years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • scratchgolf72
    replied
    agree with everybody that none of us intentionally try to injure are gear, but stuff does happen...i am 100% a leupold man, but if these redfields are just as good and dont cost $400 why not try one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sourdough Dave
    replied
    I took a fall one elk hunt and knocked my leupold out of zero. It cost me a shot at an elk. I've yet to take a fall with my redfield and hopefully won't. Any scope can be knocked out of zero by the mishaps of hunting. I was banged up by that fall too. I'd be just as happy to avoid the abuse to both me and my scope.

    Leave a comment:


  • 99explorer
    replied
    Durability should be identical to the Leupold, because the only difference in manufacturing quality is:
    1. The Redfield has less polishing of the tube.
    2. It is not multi-coated on all elements, resulting in a 1.5 to 2% loss in light transmission, and
    3. Nitrogen gas is used rather than the more expensive argon, which saves on manufacturing cost.

    Leave a comment:


  • iloveguns22
    replied
    I personally haven't had the opportunity to own either, but I've only heard good things.

    Leave a comment:


  • iloveguns22
    replied
    If possible get a Leupold, but a Redfield is good if it suits your budget better.- iron giant

    Leave a comment:


  • iloveguns22
    replied
    While a true fan of Leupold, a Redfield scope made at the Leupold plant will give comparable quality for a lot less money.- Sourdough Dave

    Leave a comment:

Welcome!

Collapse

Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

Right Rail 1

Collapse

Top Active Users

Collapse

There are no top active users.

Right Rail 2

Collapse

Latest Topics

Collapse

Right Rail 3

Collapse

Footer Ad

Collapse
Working...
X