Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Redfield Wideview ?

Folks
I got a Ruger No1 243 RSI. It came to me with a Redfield 1” 2x7 gloss scope. The lens are in the shape of a mini TV, that’s why I’m guessing it’s a wideview. It says Japan on the bottom and there’s a small screw on the lense where you would focus.
Very clear .
Can anyone tell me about this scope -pros / cons etc?
Also how do you focus?
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Semper Fidelis
Soup





Youth is wasted on the young!!!

They were very popular scopes in the '80s and early 90's, can't remember exactly when they were discontinued. Glass was pretty good for the time, but easily surpassed by newer stuff in the $200 range. Only real negatives on the scopes now is there is no factory support or warranty options, so any issues with the scopes would have to be handled by the owner out of pocket (and repairs can easily outpace the value of the scope).

you have a very nice older scope-lots of better glass these days as mentioned by Jason280.

I have owned several and sold them off for no real good reason other than I liked a leupold better at the time-for a ruger #1 you will need one of three things for proper scope/eye relief

1. a long tube like the older weavers and redfields provide

2. a scope with 4 inches of eye relief

3. extended scope rings

in my experience the redfield scope never left me wanting for more while in the field-I could hunt daylight to dark and never missed out on an "opportunity" because the scope was lacking anything.


Hope this helps some and if you decide to move the RSI along for what ever reason, keep me in mind sir-I sure do miss the one's I foolishly sold over the years

Dave

Good scopes and I'd use it under the right conditions. The biggest negative about scopes, or any glass that old is that the rubber seals may have broken down over time. For range use or local hunting where a scope failure wouldn't be a major issue I'd use it. I'd not trust a scope that old to use in harsh, wet conditions on an out of state trophy hunt that cost me a lot of money.

I had two 3x9's back in the eighties. My .300 Weatherby broke both of them.

I bought a new 2x7 widefield when I bought my 35 Whelen. Shot at my first deer with the new rifle and one of the.wires broke and curled up.
I had a 1 3/4 x 5 too and used it for years. The Whelen jarred it to death too.
Got them both repaired and installed on lighter recoiling rifles. They were decent in their day. Looking through them now new scopes have better views.

I had many at one time, good scopes, never felt under scoped back then

I had one, 3-9x40 accutrac widefield, purchased in 1980. Put it on a 26 inch MIJ Wea MkV varmintmaster 22-250.

Trying to use the trajectory compensater feature put me off such features for the rest of my life. The vertical crosswire was not repeatable, at all!

I still have a couple on 22’s,

i had a wideview rebuilt a year ago works great now.

I've had several Denver Redfields cleaned/serviced by Ironsight Inc. in Tulsa, OK. They do good work for a fair price, but they can be s-l-o-w.

I've had good luck with Denver Redfields and despite not having the best lens coatings, they are well designed and rugged. Redfield got into the scope business by buying the Kollmorgen Bear Cub series and changing them from 26mm tubes to 1" tubes. Kollmorgen made the 2.5x, 4x, and 6x Bear Cubs in both internal and external windage and elevation adjustment styles, but Redfield only made the styles with internal windage and elevation adjustments. Kollmorgen was highly respected in the optics industry, making things like submarine pariscopes, and that precision quality carried over to the Redfields.

I probably have a dozen or so of them mounted on rifles that are in my ready rack ranging from .22 LR to 9.3x62. When I was a kid, Redfields were generally considered to be in the same tier as Leupolds, higher than Weavers and lower than B&Ls.

I still have (I think) the 4x that came with my pre-64 I acquired about 1983. It’s been used occasionally when I needed a long tube. Once I farmer-tighted the rings so that the adjustments were frozen, but after I eased up on them, it went right back to work. A 3-9 on a Remington pump worked great, but ran off with the rifle when I sold it.

Others have covered the downsides of old scopes. I rarely seek them out, but do use them from time to time when they work.

I have had many of them, they were very popular back in my neck of the woods. I have used Ironsight in OK with good results as well, but they were very slow.

I put one on an 30/06 in about 1989, used it for years, it always worked good but was a little fuzzy at the edges. I decided to upgrade when I had the 06 re-barreled in about 2003 and sold the Redfield to a man I worked with. He was still using it and liking it when he retired last year.

Those older scopes were stout and held zero but I don't think you can compare them to anything made in last .....25 years when manufacturers began really competing for the market shares. .

I talked two friends who loved their WF's into comparing to a spare Weaver K6 I had in poor light conditions. They were blown away and assumed the Weaver must cost an arm and a leg. I gifted one friend a K6 and the other a Sightron Sii 3-12x42.

My first hunting season in Alaska was about 1970. All 3 of my Redfields packed it in that season , and I never bought another one. There was a good reason they went bust. Went to Leupold and have had zero problems since. Burris has done well by me also, as have the higher end Tascos. But then my "needs" and "wants, are on the modest side.

My favorite scope is a Tasco World Class 6X40, and I'd buy another in a heartbeat, or a Meopa or Leupold in that configuration.

Scopes, and rifles don't need to be the bestests and mostest out there for most of us, just dead-nuts reliable for the job at hand - tho, if money is no object, it's certainly nice! If that WF proves reliable- use it.

This outfit is a $400 Walmart special Rem 770 in 30-06. Removed the no-name scope and put the proven Tasco WC 6X40 (no longer made) on it, might have tweaked the trigger (I don't remember, but it is crisp and light), but no other modifications. MOA, with every factory ammo I have tried.

Caribou taken at well over 300 yards, on the high-trot move. A few days later my son took a more modest bull on the run at @200 yards with it. He sure liked it too, but what does he know? He probably hasn't fired 100 rounds in his entire life, outside of .22.