Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics New Redfield: How much for so little?

Given that the new Redfield 2-7 is retailing for, I believe, the 140-ish range and a comparable Leupold Riflemen is in the 170-ish range, and that the initial reviews of Redfield are favorable, my question is how is Redfield doing it?

My initial reaction is that the Redfields are using Leupold technology, and that the Rifleman series, though serviceable, seem to be at the bottom end of whats possible for a domestic scope with minimal capability. How is Redfield doing it? Maybe JB or others with insight into the industry can advise?

They are doing it because they picked a price point to compete with the Pacific rim stuff. Remember Econ 101....cost has nothing to do with selling price.

All reviews thus far have been good but we have yet to see side by side REAL optical tests against the Rifleman (which is really an M8 that was and is a fine scope)

maybe over on optics talk......

Well, Redfield isn't doing it....Leupold is. Redfield is owned and produced by Leupold. As I understand the strategy, Leupold offers the Redfield line to compete is the price range below the Leupold offerings. By using the Redfield name, Leupold can offer cheaper scopes without reducing prices on their existing lines.

The reviews make it sound like they are using Leupold Rifleman or VX-1 quality components and selling them for less. But, one has to think there are some cheaper parts in them.....none the less, they seem like an exceptional value.

Aren't Leupold and Redfield one and the same?

Leupold bought the Redfield name a year or so ago, so yes, although they are supposed to come from a different factory.

I compared a Redfield to a similar VX-I this week, definitely not the same scope cosmetically. Being that I was inside I couldn't do a valid comparison of the optics. I'm pretty sure my aging eyes couldn't see small differences anyway.

It's been reported that one reason they can sell them cheaper is that they are offering far fewer models and options which allows less overhead for parts and less down time to change over the assembly line. Both those make a real difference in total cost.

I've been told that some of the cheaper imported scopes use plastic internal lens. Are all the lens on the Redfields glass? Multicoated?

what country is the new redfield mfr in?
also if they are mfr in a dif country i doubt they share any parts wiith any of the leupolds as they would have to be shipped to the assembling plant in what ever country that was putting the redfields together. simply leupold could just be taking the original redfield design and haveing the optical mfr plant in what ever country they have contracted mfr the scope but insist that the parts are of higher quality. all this is just my thoughts, anyone who has first hand knowledge to what is realy going on with the new redfields please let us know.

Seems like I recall this pic in another thread. . .

Ingwe

All I can say is that I hope that they are as good as they seem. It will be darned nice to have a good tough American made scope that will hold up to a little abuse and can be bought by the Average American hunter. Sure would be nice to have a Redfield on "Package Guns" instead of a cheapo asian scope that the lenses fall out of (yea I've seen it!)........................dj

I'm going out to get one today,Steelhead doesn't buy crap,so I figure it's got to be a decent scope for the price.

Ive heard good things so far..haven't personally got to play with one....

Ingwe

i hadn't heard they were keeping them mfr in the US, that's a big plus in my book. then again i hadn't followed them after the buy out. thanks for the info, that answers alot.

I read in an article that one way they are cutting costs is by cutting down on packaging and the nifty, but useless, stuff that Leupold includes with their scopes. Personally, I can live without fancy instructions and scope napkins, I just want good optics. A Redfield is on the list of purchases to make in the near future.

Redfield comes right out of the same factory as Leupold.

I talked with Leupold about them and was ready to buy a
4x12 to try out.
I asked the tech if they were as durable or tough at Leupold.
He said no, the Redfield was not. They were made to compete in
their price class and offer some superior glass, which they do.
But I was put off by not being as durable, I have to have that in my scopes.

I want to try one and will. I wonder also if among other things to cut cost the advertising budget is very low.

Not that a Leupold tech might be biased? (GRIN) and what "run it until destruction tests" could he supply (NONE).

It is inexpensive and I am fortunate to be able to afford expensive scopes so insofar as big game rifles go, I'll skip them. But I am looking at that 4-12 for my TC semi-auto 22 for a gopher popper. Like the return of the Burris peep plex as well as the holdover dot in these scopes.

They are made in the USA and have no plastic lenses, however the raw glass (as Leupold's) is sourced abroad.

Ever hear of Photoshop?

http://www.opticstalk.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=21176

Well the post is from "that other forum", but it has answers for a lot of questions being asked about the Redfield scopes. Well done by a good reviewer and germane to the topic. WOrth reading if you are interested in the Redfield.