Vintage Redfield scopes opposite adjustments

[CEldon]

Thanks for your attention,

In returning to shooting, i found an early (1957-1964) Redfield Bear Cub 3x 9x 40 1” tube scope on an inherited Remington model 700. It drove me crazy at the range. On further inspection at home, the windage and elevation knobs do actually move the crosshairs in the opposite direction than what is marked. Up moves the crosshair down and left moves it right. The adjustments move smoothly, with no clicks, and there are 48 adjustments on the dial to turn it 360 degrees. Was this common on the early Redfield scopes?

Secondly, what are the thoughts on leaving this on the model 700, or putting it aside and mounting a newer scope. I target shoot right now.

Thanks

[Pahoo]

Was this common on the early Redfield scopes?

Yes and not exclusive to Redfield. Internally, most scope actually function this way and to compensate for the confusion. They started marking the new 180 of what they actually do. .....

Secondly, what are the thoughts on leaving this on the model 700, or putting it aside and mounting a newer scope. I target shoot right now.

Redfields "were" some of the best scopes, you coudl buy; ... "Back-in-The Day"
I still have a couple in use. "Experts" today, claim that some cheaper scopes of today, are just as good as the old ones. ......

So, it's your call and if you are happy with the "Vintage" scope's performance, stay with it. ....

Be Safe !!!

[ligonierbill]

I have one vintage Redfield, and it does not act like yours. But the main things are, as always, is the glass good, are adjustments reasonably true, and does it hold zero. If yes, it's a matter of your preference. I like the old scopes. But the scopes available today are (mostly) better. Me, I'd work with the old girl. If she disappoints, dump her.

[CEldon]

Thanks everyone.

The glass seems to be very clear, and other than the dials having some marks from all of the adjusting last week, the scope is in pretty good visual condition.

I will start from the basic barrel sighting, then try again to get some kind of zero at 100. If that’s possible, I’ll see if it holds zero over a period of time.

About this “vintage” scope, build with those early mid-priced standards, does anyone think the model 700, shooting 7mm, will be too much repeated shock for the scope? I don’t want to damage it.

Thanks

[FrankenMauser]

Think of it this way:
Classic scopes wanted you to, "move the crosshairs to the group."
Whereas modern scopes want you to, "move the group to the crosshairs."

The adjustments aren't backwards, modern shooters are.

[Pahoo]

About this “vintage” scope, build with those early mid-priced standards, does anyone think the model 700, shooting 7mm, will be too much repeated shock for the scope? I don’t want to damage it

.
WOW, Now that is one that I can't answer. I know mine handled a 3006 without any problems. However, here is something to consider. Redfield out of Colorado provided one heck of a warrantee, on their scopes and as far as I know they are no longer in business or backing these "vintage" scopes. So you might want to explore other options. ....

By my measure, Redfield was an excellent company. I once bought a damaged scope, very cheaply and sent it in to be fixed, expecting to pay for repairs. They fixed it for nothing. ......

I have one vintage Redfield, and it does not act like yours.

I'm happy, for you !!!

Be Safe !!!

[Scorch]

About this “vintage” scope, build with those early mid-priced standards, does anyone think the model 700, shooting 7mm, will be too much repeated shock for the scope? I don’t want to damage it.

Your old scope is a Redfield Bear Cub, after Redfield bought out Kollmorgen because their scopes were so good. Kollmorgen was famous for submarine periscopes and naval gun sights, so to say their scopes were well made would be an understatement, they were actually optical instruments. But like all purchased brands, Redfield took what they thought they could use and the rest dropped by the wayside, so it's safe to say it's not as rugged as the original Kollmorgens. That said, they are very clear and very repeatable, I have a Kollmorgen scope on an old Savage 99.

So, is it a good scope? Yes. Can it take a lot of punishment? That's an unknown, but you could take it off and sell it, there are people selling those old scopes to collectors. Then you could put any scope you want on the 700 and feel comfortable about its life expectancy.

[CEldon]

Great responses all������

Because this Redfield was handed down from my WWII, purple heart, gunsmith schooled father, i want to maintain it in as good a condition as possible. I’ve decided to remove the scope and store it in the safe. Maybe my Grandson can use it when he gets older.

Thanks for all of your replys and be safe out there.

[Jim Watson]

the windage and elevation knobs do actually move the crosshairs in the opposite direction than what is marked

You have to look at it as moving the point of impact in the indicated direction.
That is not what is happening optically, but it is what it looks like when you SHOOT THE GUN.

[tangolima]

I think the markings are correct. Up means moving the POI up, so the cross hair goes down. Right means moving the POI right, so the cross hair goes left.

Modern optics indeed work work better on average. But they don't have the associated history. I have a redfield wide screen on a 40 years old rem 700 in .30-06. Have thought many times about putting a new scope on the rifle, but always stopped before I started. The gun and rifle have been together for so long. I can't separate such a good old couple.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[CEldon]

OK, thanks for the conversations,

I just came from the workbench and scope and marker lines drawn on the opposite wall. This is the realization.

I must first put a hole in the target by putting a round down range. Then i must adjust the crosshair to sit on that hole. As suggested above, I don’t really care any more what the dials say. I just turn those dials until the crosshair sits on that hole. Now, even though the crosshair will be off the bullseye, it will be on the hole, so wherever i put that crosshair now, the hole should be in the same place. When i put the crosshair on the bullseye, i will put a hole in the bullseye.

Personally, if i was in charge of marking these dials, i would mark them to represent what the crosshair will do. “UP” crosshair goes up. “LEFT” it goes left.

[tangolima]

I believe the Russians follow your convention, while the rest of the world goes the other way. It may not be intuitive for bore sighting a scope, but it is good for making corrections in the field, especially with a spotter. He will call out like 2 clicks high and one click right. POI makes more sense than cross hair.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[HiBC]

We can disagree,and thats OK.

When I make a scope adjustment, my concern is moving the point of impact on the target.

I want an "UP" correction to raise the point of impact. I want a "Left" correction to move my point of impact to the left.

If my impact was low and right, I would apply "Up" and "Left" correction.

If a scope did the opposite, I'd consider it backwards.

But thats just me.

Back in the Denver Redfield days, We of modest income tended to buy El Paso Weavers. Rugged,good value scopes.
The Redfields were considered "A cut above" "I wished I had a Redfield " because the grass is always greener...

I recall in the time of Redfield seeming to be doing very well, they were advertising non stop on the AM radio for machinists to come to work.
I'm not sure that was a good sign.
They were innovating,using stadia wires with the variable for ranging and TV screen shaped lenses..

I dunno about all that but the basic older Redfields were top shelf.
Now,with some Lyman Alaskan and All American experience, I hold the vintage Lymans in high regard.

I have never owned one, but the Silhouette shooters held the Weaver T-10 in high regard.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by HiBC

When I make a scope adjustment, my concern is moving the point of impact on the target.

I want an "UP" correction to raise the point of impact. I want a "Left" correction to move my point of impact to the left.

If my impact was low and right, I would apply "Up" and "Left" correction.

If a scope did the opposite, I'd consider it backwards.

But thats just me.

That's me, too. I agree completely.

[CEldon]

I guess it just took a little time and hands-on, for me to understand the crosshair/knob adjustment relationship.

The scope does exactly what it is suppose to do, and i understand its operation now.

Thanks

[taylorce1]

The scope does exactly what it is suppose to do, and i understand its operation now.

I'm happy you figured it out. I didn't say anything as I didn't want to add to the confusion.

[Ricklin]

Wise choice putting that old scope away. I see it this way.
Rifles have not changed much if at all since the advent of high pressure cartridges. Technology for lack of a better term has had little effect on the rifle.
Scope technology on the other hand has made today's riflescopes dramatically better. Esp. the ability to gather light, so critical for those dawn and dusk shots. The downside is most all the companies make matte black finish today, they do not look right on a classic rust blue rifle.

[jmr40]

Unless I'm reading something wrong the scope is normal. If you move the crosshairs DOWN the bullet will impact HIGHER. If you move the crosshairs LEFT, the bullet will impact farther to the RIGHT.


With iron sights we move the rear sight in the direction we want the bullet to move. If we are adjusting bullet impact by using the front sight we move the front sight in the opposite direction we want to change bullet impact.

With a scope you are only adjusting the front sight.

[eastbank]

i have a few older weaver scopes(60-K models) on several what i class as classic rifles that work fine, but i don,t class them against newly made scopes. i do have a older weaver T-6 on a japanese made winchester high wall in 45-70 and it holds its own on any 6x scope i have ever owned.

[CEldon]

OK, i guess everything's good to go now.

I am going to replace this Redfield with a new scope sometime in the near future. Its already in its box and put away. I may just buy another Leupold 4x 12x 40, like my Winchester has, but i only have one session behind that scope and need more time to see how it works.

Thanks for all of your input. It helped quite a bit.

[stagpanther]

I have a couple of the new redfield revenges including one mounted on a heavy-recoiling 444 marlin, I got them cheap on sale and they so far have performed excellently, tracking is accurate and glass is good enough for very good consistency at reasonable hunting ranges, I'd rate them a step above the Nikon prostaff that used to dominate the budget 3 x 9 hunting scope market (almost all of my cheaper Nikons started falling apart right after Nikon went out of the scope business, I wonder if they knew something?).

[FrankenMauser]

The Redfield Revolutions, I like.
The Revenge, not so much. I bought one, with plans to buy a few more, and was very glad that I waited on the rest.

The glass is just too cheap. Color, clarity, distortion are all disappointing.
Twice the price of a Revolution, for half the quality.


---

Keep in mind that, for now, Leupold is only making matte black scopes, and only the "core" products.
No silver, no high gloss, no models that sell in low numbers, no custom shop, no Redfields.
So if you want a scope that looks "period correct" on the rifle, you'll have to:
A) Turn to the used market.
B) Wait. For an undetermined amount of time.

[Ricklin]

I just put a Burris Fullfield 4 on my 30/06 I went with 3-12 X 42. So far so good, I bore sited it last night. I went with Millett twist on style mounts, the height is perfect. I need to get out today and burn some powder. Not a fan of the Weaver mounts it had before.

[Savvy_Jack]

Modern scopes are over rated. Why everyone wants to be a "weekend sniper" wanna-be is beyond me!

Hunting scopes are basic, and were manufactured that way. The 3x-9x hunting scopes really can not be improved...just added bells and whistles as a selling point. Target Shooting and Long distance hunting is another subject!

In the mid-60's a Remington bolt action rifle was about $170 while a Redfield 3x-9x scope was about $95. Can you imagine paying $800 for a bolt action rifle and $600 for a scope now days? How about a $350 bolt action from walmart and a $200 scope from Leupold?

Things that make ya go hmmmmmm!

Redfield made some really nice scopes back in the 60's and 70's...maybe even the 80's. Eventually purchased and made in the Philippians by Leupold, the Redfield scope were eventually bought out by Academy Sports and now made in China like most everything else in America.

Leupold even made a limited 6x fixed scope I would love to have had. Dump the bells and whistles and go hunt!

[gwpercle]

Originally Posted by Savvy_Jack

Modern scopes are over rated. Why everyone wants to be a "weekend sniper" wanna-be is beyond me!

Hunting scopes are basic, and were manufactured that way. The 3x-9x hunting scopes really can not be improved...just added bells and whistles as a selling point. Target Shooting and Long distance hunting is another subject!

In the mid-60's a Remington bolt action rifle was about $170 while a Redfield 3x-9x scope was about $95. Can you imagine paying $800 for a bolt action rifle and $600 for a scope now days? How about a $350 bolt action from walmart and a $200 scope from Leupold?

Things that make ya go hmmmmmm!

Redfield made some really nice scope back in the 60's and 70's...maybe even the 80's. Eventually purchased and made in the Philippians by Leupold, the Redfield scope were eventually bought out by Academy Sports and now made in Chins like most everything else in America.

Leupol even made a limited 6x fixed scope I would love to have had. Dump the bells and whistles and go hunt!

Well said !
I can still do some passable shooting with my old Weaver blue steel tubed fixed K4-X on my 30-06 ... no bells ... no whistles !
Gary