This may be old news to most here but aparently Leupold sold the Redfield brand to "Academy gear". Not exactly legends in the optics industry.

The times sure are changin. Makes me wonder if Leupold is still on solid footing and what the future holds for hunting gear that isnt built around the 1000 yard shot?

I wondered whether Leupold would be able to make Redfield work. It seemed like they needed to move upmarket to survive, not try to build inexpensive scopes in America to compete vs imported Chinese scopes. I know they also had a lower tier built in the Philippines, but still. Seemed like a stretch. Bought one of the USA built Redfields and like it. Hope they can keep building Leupolds and stay in business.

You make a good point. I have one of the Revolution scopes and I like it. To me it kind of fills a niche between garbage and spendy and I thought they did that pretty well. I was good with Leupold carrying on the Redfield brand, but I have some serious doubts about their future now. I guess time will tell. Although as long as Leupold carried the brand it probably would have never got much better. That would be akin to competing with their house brand.

I had a number of the early USA Redfields, but subsequently replaced them with Leupolds over the years. Eons ago, Redfield scopes were highly respected and quality. Haven't been so for many years. It probably helped Leupold to rid themselves of the brand.

Did Redfiled actually make scopes after Leupold bought the name? I thought they were just pre-VX-1 with the redfield name on them.

I'll bet Acadamy will import a scope and have them marked Redfield.

The Redfield scopes were assembled in Beaverton, Oregon. I found the Revolution scopes plain but dependable, and have a 2X7 that I will hang onto.

"Redfield" has been nothing more than a name since the original company located in Denver folded. Burris left Redfield and took several of the top technicians with him, which pretty much sealed the fate of "Denver Redfields". Since then various owners have bought and sold the Redfield trademark. Most of them sold somewhat mediocre scopes and other optics produced overseas and branded with the formerly upscale brand of Redfield.

Leupold's original "Revolution" line sold under the Redfield name consisted of some quite serviceable scopes. Apparently, there was not enough margin in the line to satisfy the corporate bean counters, so they dropped it and went to a Chinese-made line called "Revenge". This line was hardly superior to any other brand of Chinese optics, so since it was priced higher (to pay for the name), it didn't sell particularly well.

By now, people who are old enough to remember when Redfields were quality optics are also savvy enough to know that the Redfield name has become meaningless, which made its value to Leupold marginal. Like the brand name "Trump" is no longer of any value to hotels, Leupold was lucky to find a buyer who would put "Redfield" on what it was attempting to sell.

Yes, when I was young, Redfield and Leupold were the two brands people picked that wanted something better than a Tasco, Bushnell or other low-end label. They were well thought of.

I'm a big Leupold fan ...
A fine scope for a reasonable price ..
Their warranty policy is outstanding, I've sent two different Leupold back for repair and both times they were fixed for free ..

I had one leaning on a tree , and accidentally knocked it off . It landed on a rock and put a large dent on the tube ...I told them what I did , and they replaced it for free ..amazing

Another I bought off flea bay - it was internally broken when I got it , they fixed that one for free also

So - yea I'm a Leupold guy ....
I didn't realize that they owned Redfield

I own several of the real Redfields (Denver made) and they are great scopes, most certainly as good as anything Leupold made. I am old enough to remember when Redfield was the standard by which a riflescope was judged. The 3x9 Illuminators I have are as good and clear as anything sold for $1500 today JMO

quote:

Originally posted by Canadian reloarder:
I own several of the real Redfields (Denver made) and they are great scopes, most certainly as good as anything Leupold made. I am old enough to remember when Redfield was the standard by which a riflescope was judged. The 3x9 Illuminators I have are as good and clear as anything sold for $1500 today JMO

Well, Redfields were priced just a few dollars higher, model for model, than Leupolds. But by the mid-1960's Leupold began to pull ahead of Redfield in sales because shooters began to find them superior in certain ways, mostly compactness, weight, and eye relief. This ground lost to their primary competitor was part of what precipitated the Burris people leaving to form their own company.

Also, I thought that the Redfield "Illuminator" line was made by a contractor post-Denver, but I am uncertain of this and am probably mistaken.

But don't get me wrong -- the Denver Redfields were tops in hunting scopes in their day. I have a couple of them on contemporaneous '50's and '60's rifles where they serve admirably.

The Redfield Illuminator was made during the Denver years. It was their top of the line optic. What really closed Redfield's doors was the envorimental law suit filed against them.

quote:

Originally posted by Canadian reloarder:
The Redfield Illuminator was made during the Denver years. It was their top of the line optic. What really closed Redfield's doors was the envorimental law suit filed against them.

No knowledge of the lawsuit, but Redfield's demise IMO started when silhouette shooters realized their adjustments not only didn't track, they were not even close. Back then, the gear used by silhouette shooters contributed greatly to a brand's reputation, kind of like F Class, PRC, etc. today.

Ha! what Redfield did that got the stake in their heart was that scope that looked like a television screen!! America didn't like that POS..It was the death bellow!

Ray, I think Redfield was already in decline when they decided to try the novel TV screen eyepiece to rejuvenate the brand. Needless to say, the effort wasn't successful. However, some people are fond of the "Widefield" and there is a pretty decent market for them when found in nice condition.

But however misguided Redfield's TV screen eyepiece was, it can't hold a candle to Leupold's divot out of the bottom of its objective lens. What a turkey! But it will someday be a collector item, I predict.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Ha! what Redfield did that got the stake in their heart was that scope that looked like a television screen!! America didn't like that POS..It was the death bellow!

Well....I love the Widefields that sit on my Mdl 70 '06 and M77 338 WM. Lots of deer, bear, moose and caribou have fallen to those "POS."

one of my favorite scopes was the widefield Redfield.

That is a 60's Redfield 3200 on a 60's BSA MKIII, and that is one fine scope



early 80's H&R M12 and Redfield scope



Redfield made quality optics, and then, the original Redfield went away. All that is left now is a brand name, with the parts subcontracted out to China.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:


No knowledge of the lawsuit, but Redfield's demise IMO started when silhouette shooters realized their adjustments not only didn't track, they were not even close. Back then, the gear used by silhouette shooters contributed greatly to a brand's reputation, kind of like F Class, PRC, etc. today.

That must have been with the early models. Their micro-trac system was comparable and sometimes superior to scopes costing twice as much.

Im not a fan of the "widefield" models either. They are pure snake oil IMO. They dont add anything to the FOV, they just appear to by cutting off the upper and lower field. An effective marketing ploy though.
I recently bought a 700 BDL with a Simmons version of the "widefield". It came off the day I brought it home. Thinking about using it for yard art.