Hi,

I am looking at purchasing a new scope for my .270 Win. I currently use a Bushnell Banner 3-9x40 which has served me well, but I would like to get something with slightly higher magnification, around 12 x.

The options i have narrowed down to are:

Weaver Classic 4-16x42 A/O R4,109.00
Bushnell 4-16x40 Banner R2,899.00
Leupold VX-I 4-12x40 R3,900.00
Nikon Field / Buckmaster 4.5-14x40 R3,700.00
Nikon Monarch 3-12x42 SF R4,400.00

Which one of these do you think) will offer best value for money & durability? I am leaning towards the Leupold.

Thanks.

Earlier this summer I was using a Leupold VX II 4-12X on my 270 Winchester and was quite happy with it. At least in the U.S.A. At least in the U.S.A., they can be had for about R1,200 (assuming a R/$ exchanged rate of 6:1) used on eBay if you take your time.

Thanks, eBay might be a good option, if I can exercise patience.

Add to the list above;

Redfield Revolution 4-12x40 R2,640.00

This also seems like excellent value.

Among the scopes on your list, the most dependable and serviceable will be the Leupold VX-I. The new Redfield line is being made by Leupold, but is too new to say anything in regards to durability. Most people who have purchased one of the new Redfields are favorably disposed toward them thus far. If price is important, you may want to go with the Redfield.

By the way, I have a Leupold VX-I 4-12 on an HB varmint rifle that I use for tiny little prairie dogs out to 300 yards and more. It provides a very clear sight picture and flawless performance. Other than the use of friction, rather than "click" detent reticle adjustments, the VX-I offers essentially the same performance as the higher priced Leupold lines. The drivel about lens coatings and other features of the much higher-priced Leupold lines is primarily marketing propaganda drempt up by overpaid ad copy writers.

Incidentally, as you probably know, the Leupold VX-I sells at retail for about 3/5ths the price you list here in the U.S. I know there are import and transportation costs, but still, you're being ripped off.

I've had good luck with the Pentax Pioneer. They are Burris Fulfield with Pentax markings. I have the 3-9 and 4.5-14 and like them. They are a little heavy but have good optics for the $.

Of the list, I would probably pick the Monarch but the Leupold is a great choice too.

Hi all,

thanks for your suggestions.

I got myself a Redfield Revolution 4-12x40 scope.

Although the product is new on the market and has not yet proven itself, I chose it based on the fact that it is made in by Leupold at their Oregon production facility.

A bit of Googling revealed that these scopes are built by Leupold and undergo the same stringent stress testing that all Leupold scopes are subjected to.

I compared the Redfield with a Leupold VX-1 4-12 x 40. The Leupold optics may offer slightly better clarity around the peripheral of the scope, but this may even be resolved by adjustment of focus on the ocular lense. The Redfield was 40% less, and this was a consideration.

Time will tell, but I believe that Leupold may have a winner here, one which can compete directly with Asian-made imports on price, and will still offer Leupold's legendary reliability.

As an aside, I must just add how refreshing it is to get documentation with optics that is clear, concise and well written. I often find that Asian-made optics have poorly-written manuals etc. God bless America!

Redfield was THE preferred scope of hunters who could afford it during late 1950's and early 1960's before ceding that position to Leupold. In fact, model for model an early 60's Redfield sold for about 15-20% more than an early 60's Leupold, the price diffrence being based largely on reputation. So, the Redfield name carries with it some value in terms of consumer esteem.

That esteem was apparently what Leupold was counting on when it purchased the rights to the Redfield name. Leupold's strategy is to market a "value"-priced line of scopes to people who are attracted to the Redfield name. This strategy can only be a success if the scopes acutally are a value. Therefore it would stand to reason that Leupold, which is obviously capable of producing a quality product, would want to ensure that its Redfield line is well-received and regarded as worthy of the name it carries.

All the above is a lengthy way of saying that I'll bet you'll be pleased with your Redfield. It will do as much or more than any scope on your list and do it for less money. Hopefully, it will also turn out to be a durable instrument that will give you many years of service.

By the way, the first "high quality" scope I ever bought was a Leupold 3-9X back in 1965. I purchased it because Leupolds were getting good reviews AND it was $10 cheaper than a Redfield. It still sits on top of the same Sako magnum rifle it was purchased for and still works as well as the day it was bought. I'll report back in a few years if it looks like it's going to last for any decent length of time.

Thanks Stonecreek,

what you have said about Redfield and Leupold is exactly whu I decided to give the Redfield a try.

I will report back some time, once I have thoroughly tested.

This scope will be mounted on my Zastava .270, which I also consider to be excellent value for money. It seems like an appropriate match of scope & rifle.