View Full Version : Leupold or Redfield?

August 9, 2001, 02:43 PM
I been shopping and gathering information on scopes I wish to purchase. I have-it down to three scopes: 1. Leupold Tactical Vari-x II 3-9x40mm, duplex sights, matte finish $350 AND 2. Redfield Golden Five Star 6-18AO*x40mm, duplex sights, matte finish $330 AND 3. Redfield Golden Five Star 3-9x50mm duplex sights, matte finish $240.

Right know I am battling the Redfield between #2 and #3. I am leaning towards #2, since it has AO*. But I like the 50mm because of light gathering at low light conditions.

But which is the better choice? I will not be using the scope for target work at the range or varmint targets/ hunting, I will be using it for field work in rought land and shooting situations ranges anywhere from 71-365 meters(75-yards to 400-yards). I wish to get a few opinions from you fellas with expirence with these brand scopes. Different field and class instructors tell me mix reviews, some tell me Redfield, and some tell me Leupold. I know for sure the Redfield will hold true in harsh enviroments and grunt work, but I never tested the Leupold. Have any of you tested the Leupold brand or put-it through rough stress in field situations? How does the Leupold handle drops at 3-feet? Give me any feedback and knowledge you fellas have, it will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Ed Chavez :confused:

*AO- Adjustable Objective.

August 9, 2001, 08:10 PM
Hi Ed...

I don't drop my rifles to check out the durability of the scopes, but Leupold is the one to get. Their customer service is second to none and you'll spend a lot more money to get a better, tougher scope. When it comes to scopes, I spell "quality" L-E-U-P-O-L-D. MAde in the USofA to boot!

BTW, I have never had to send a scope back for repair, only for modification.

August 11, 2001, 04:27 PM
What are you going to be shooting at with your rifle? At 400 yards knowing the size of what you are shooting at will help determine whether power more than 10x would help.

up to 10x you shouldn't need an adjustable objective. Parallax should be minimal. Smaller objectives let you mount the scope lower on your gun and make shooting easier. I like the optics, clarity and picture from my leupolds better than any bushnell, tasco, or redfield i have looked through. I have never regretted a leupold purchase. Can't say the same for some of the others.

I have used the new Weaver Grand slam 3-10 and like its picture and features very much. Its semi-armored and seems durable. Not to say leupolds aren't but I would consider the Weaver also. Check MidwayUSA's price think its about $240


August 14, 2001, 09:28 PM
Hello All; I also would like to know what you plan on hunting or shooting with your rifle but I have other info from first hand observation at time of the tests. A group of hunters I know and I were at our local gun store and we were comparing the light gathering ability of a few scopes and this is what happened. Out of Zeiss, Swarovski, Leupold, Simmons, Pentax, Weaver, and Redfield this is what was determined. Oh and by the way we were using a light meter and a constant source of light. It went like this Zeiss = 99%, Swarovski =98%, Pentax =89%, Simmons= 84%, Weaver =72%, Leupold =65% and lastly Redfield = 64%. We all were amazed at how well the Pentax did in relation to the more expensive scopes and were shocked that even alot cheaper scopes let more light through than the Leupold and Redfield. About six months later and alot more looking I bought a Pentax at another supplier. Last year I used it deer hunting and late in the day I was glassing a corn field with my Nikon 12x50s and saw a deer about 200 yards away. I couldn't tell if it had horns but looking through the Pentax 3x9x40 I could clearly see a rack on it. It was the best buck I've ever taken, an 8 point.