An interesting discovery Redfield vs Burris

[Clockmaker]

So in my journey through optics I'm learning that more often than not, the cheaper scopes have yielded better results. If you seen my last post about a vortex Diamondback and a bushnell rimfire, the bushnell wiped the Diamondback across the floor.

So I picked up a Burris Prevail 3-9x40mm and mounted it on my CZ 457 .22LR it is really quite a nice little scope and I had bought a used Redfield Revolution 4-12x40mm and comparing them side by side.... the Burris at 169$ clearly out performs the Redfield. The Burris at 9x maxed out is more clear and brings the target closer than the Redfield at 12x maxed out for 300$ used pricetag.

So in total I've played with 4 scopes now and each time the cheaper scope out performs the more expensive and better reputation scopes.

Less is more.

 

[Epoxy7]

Fun fact. Burris was a designer with Redfield and left to start his own company.

 

[MilitaryCollectorMark]

So in my journey through optics I'm learning that more often than not, the cheaper scopes have yielded better results. If you seen my last post about a vortex Diamondback and a bushnell rimfire, the bushnell wiped the Diamondback across the floor.

So I picked up a Burris Prevail 3-9x40mm and mounted it on my CZ 457 .22LR it is really quite a nice little scope and I had bought a used Redfield Revolution 4-12x40mm and comparing them side by side.... the Burris at 169$ clearly out performs the Redfield. The Burris at 9x maxed out is more clear and brings the target closer than the Redfield at 12x maxed out for 300$ used pricetag.

So in total I've played with 4 scopes now and each time the cheaper scope out performs the more expensive and better reputation scopes.

Less is more.

I guess the has better quality glass, maybe the burris has higher quality since its a 3-9 vs a 4-12?

 

[cosmic]

Thing is, quality scopes have repeatability in their adjustments. So your comparison should take this into consideration. I would say that more than 50% of recreational hunting scopes suffer from this shortcoming, and the owners dont even know it.

 

[DaveMachine]

So in my journey through optics I'm learning that more often than not, the cheaper scopes have yielded better results. If you seen my last post about a vortex Diamondback and a bushnell rimfire, the bushnell wiped the Diamondback across the floor.

So I picked up a Burris Prevail 3-9x40mm and mounted it on my CZ 457 .22LR it is really quite a nice little scope and I had bought a used Redfield Revolution 4-12x40mm and comparing them side by side.... the Burris at 169$ clearly out performs the Redfield. The Burris at 9x maxed out is more clear and brings the target closer than the Redfield at 12x maxed out for 300$ used pricetag.

So in total I've played with 4 scopes now and each time the cheaper scope out performs the more expensive and better reputation scopes.

Less is more.

Sounds like you discovered the properties of physics rather than some sort of revelation about the price/quality of certain scope models.

 

[dan belisle]

Thing is, quality scopes have repeatability in their adjustments. So your comparison should take this into consideration. I would say that more than 50% of recreational hunting scopes suffer from this shortcoming, and the owners dont even know it.

That's because most recreational hunting scopes are adjusted once, and when they are sighted in are usually left alone after. Most huntrs aren't constantly dialing up and down. - dan

 

[Potashminer]

That's because most recreational hunting scopes are adjusted once, and when they are sighted in are usually left alone after. Most huntrs aren't constantly dialing up and down. - dan

Is an interesting thing to see/hear people assess a scope (a sight) based on what it looks like on outside, or what they can see through it in a store - about no one that I know does a "box" test to verify that the guts work as they should, nor do most even know what is parallax sighting error - but opinionated as "H E double hockey sticks" about scope brands, that often turn out to be owned by the same corporation - like Vista Outdoors - now-a-days.

 

[Bittereinder]

I think it's quite possible to find comparisons with "hidden gems" like you have where the cheaper one is better, at least in some areas. In general you get what you pay for with optics, but it's a messy correlation.

Take a look at Chuck Hawks' scope rating table. It's dated now, and I'm sure some of the ratings could be argued, but from the comparisons I've made and what others with more experience have written, it's a pretty good list and set of approximate ratings of scopes. There are quite a few that rate above their price, e.g. like Bushnell Elites.

 

[Dogleg]

Is an interesting thing to see/hear people assess a scope (a sight) based on what it looks like on outside, or what they can see through it in a store - about no one that I know does a "box" test to verify that the guts work as they should, nor do most even know what is parallax sighting error - but opinionated as "H E double hockey sticks" about scope brands, that often turn out to be owned by the same corporation - like Vista Outdoors - now-a-days.

A tall target test is good test too. Break it up until you know the scope is repeatable first shot every time and what exactly a click means. The single best way that I know to do that is a quality 22 rimfire target test mule. If it doesn’t work on an Anschutz it isn’t getting better on your Lapua. I know which way is faster and cheaper.

Different for set it and forget it guys though. Most brands if a rifle goes sour I change the scope. With Leupollds I change the barrel.

Nust to build on it a bit; a common scenario is guys using an unknown rifle with an Unknown scope with unknown loads.fne when it works; but if it doesn’t where do you start? Nice to be able to believe in something.

 

[DOUGLAS D]

Fun fact. Burris was a designer with Redfield and left to start his own company.

That's a true fact. The decline of Redfield began about that same time.
I remember the early 70's when Redfield had a big market share. Leupold took most of that.
Any Burris I've owned has been top notch optics within it's price range.
The older Redfields were very good scopes. The newer ones not so great.

 

[nowarningshot]

The interesting thing about optics is quality year over year, not necessarily brand over Brand. We live in a golden age for affordable quality optics.

New coatings, state of the art manufacturing, and slave labour in China. The most common centres for manufacturing are China, Philippines, Japan, and Germany. Also an ascending location for quality. Chinese glass can be ok--good, it's a manufacturing to a price point or quality issue over location. Vortex can hand you a replacement scope because slaves made your $500 scope for $25. This in turn pushes prices down on competitors. One of the reasons very little glass is manufactured in USA, and even Bushnell sent their "elite" line manufacturing from Japan to the Philippines.

I have a Burris 3-18 that is excellent. Believe I have only one Leupold left, it's well suited to the firearm it's on. Doesn't cost me anything to leave it. In all the dealings I've had with firearms and accessories manufacturers over the years, I've never dealt with rudeness and lack of customer support to the level of Korth. So I don't leupold.

 

[Potashminer]

I came into an older scope - a Hensoldt Diatal. I really do not know when made - 1950's or maybe 1960's - apparently Hensoldt was in Wetzlar, Germany - same city that Leica was - I do not know if that was East or West Germany at the time. I believe there were Leica "Diatal" scopes at one time, so either Hensoldt became, or was bought out by, Leica. That scope is literally the first scope view that I have had that will take your breathe away - just amazing detail and colour rendition - I have some Leupold Freedom scopes whose view is getting like that. But Germans were doing that maybe 75 years ago. Is very "old school" type scope - has no windage turret - windage to be adjusted in the mounts - and the scope body is 26 mm diameter, so get to have some fun these days to find rings that size. Originally I think it had mounting rails on the bottom - a previous owner has had them removed, to look like a "conventional" scope now.

 

[dan belisle]

I came into an older scope - a Hensoldt Diatal. I really do not know when made - 1950's or maybe 1960's - apparently Hensoldt was in Wetzlar, Germany - same city that Leica was - I do not know if that was East or West Germany at the time. I believe there were Leica "Diatal" scopes at one time, so either Hensoldt became, or was bought out by, Leica. That scope is literally the first scope view that I have had that will take your breathe away - just amazing detail and colour rendition - I have some Leupold Freedom scopes whose view is getting like that. But Germans were doing that maybe 75 years ago. Is very "old school" type scope - has no windage turret - windage to be adjusted in the mounts - and the scope body is 26 mm diameter, so get to have some fun these days to find rings that size. Originally I think it had mounting rails on the bottom - a previous owner has had them removed, to look like a "conventional" scope now.

I have a hensoldt 1.5-6x from the early 60s, on a Wby Mk V from the same time. Very, very nice glass. Brownells used to sell adapter rings for 1 inch rings to 26mm scopes. - dan

 

[Potashminer]

I have a hensoldt 1.5-6x from the early 60s, on a Wby Mk V from the same time. Very, very nice glass. Brownells used to sell adapter rings for 1 inch rings to 26mm scopes. - dan

A minor issue - as I discovered the "hard" way - 1" diameter is 25.4 mm - so 1" rings too small for 26 mm scopes - perhaps the adapters were from 30 mm rings down to 26 mm scopes. As it turned out, I was able to come across some 26 mm rings made by Weaver, and some 26 mm Leupold STD rings - certainly not "run-of-the-mill" to find in Manitoba any more!!! There were ways to ream out 1" rings to 26 mm and I was 3/4 the way to trying that, when I found some actual 26 mm rings.

The rifle in question is a made-in-1955 Husqvarna Model 4100 in 7x57 - it is wearing a 4 power Pecar scope with the German #1 reticle - 26 mm Weaver rings on Weaver bases - it seemed to me what a 1950's /1960's prairie guy would have used, for mounting a scope.

 

[dan belisle]

A minor issue - as I discovered the "hard" way - 1" diameter is 25.4 mm - so 1" rings too small for 26 mm scopes - perhaps the adapters were from 30 mm rings down to 26 mm scopes. As it turned out, I was able to come across some 26 mm rings made by Weaver, and some 26 mm Leupold STD rings - certainly not "run-of-the-mill" to find in Manitoba any more!!! There were ways to ream out 1" rings to 26 mm and I was 3/4 the way to trying that, when I found some actual 26 mm rings.

The rifle in question is a made-in-1955 Husqvarna Model 4100 in 7x57 - it is wearing a 4 power Pecar scope with the German #1 reticle - 26 mm Weaver rings on Weaver bases - it seemed to me what a 1950's /1960's prairie guy would have used, for mounting a scope.

Could be, I never needed them. Mine came in rings with claw mounts, fitted to the rifle. I have had a couple of fixed Pecar scopes in the past, as well as Nickel, another German maker from back in the day. They all have much better glass than their North American contemporaries. - dan

 

[mikeyb]

So in my journey through optics I'm learning that more often than not, the cheaper scopes have yielded better results. If you seen my last post about a vortex Diamondback and a bushnell rimfire, the bushnell wiped the Diamondback across the floor.

So I picked up a Burris Prevail 3-9x40mm and mounted it on my CZ 457 .22LR it is really quite a nice little scope and I had bought a used Redfield Revolution 4-12x40mm and comparing them side by side.... the Burris at 169$ clearly out performs the Redfield. The Burris at 9x maxed out is more clear and brings the target closer than the Redfield at 12x maxed out for 300$ used pricetag.

So in total I've played with 4 scopes now and each time the cheaper scope out performs the more expensive and better reputation scopes.

Less is more.

In this price range, tolerance stacking can result in two completely different evaluations. While I don't doubt a new Burris is better than a new Redfield, that's based on my own sample size where the 3 Burris scopes I have are better than the two Redfield scopes I've owned. I'm sure there someone out there who think the Redfields are great for some reason or another.

What are your actual test criteria though? Looking through it? Twisting the mag knob a little? Have you tested repeatability? Tracking test? A lot of "optics tests" are highly subjective because they don't conduct objective testing with measurable results. Once I started reading about how others were buying scopes and putting them through all kinds of crazy tests (and most everything was failing), I started reconsidering how I tested my own scopes (and that's how I ended on the Fullfield IV 2.5-10x42 being the best "cheap" hunting scope on the market).

Is an interesting thing to see/hear people assess a scope (a sight) based on what it looks like on outside, or what they can see through it in a store - about no one that I know does a "box" test to verify that the guts work as they should, nor do most even know what is parallax sighting error - but opinionated as "H E double hockey sticks" about scope brands, that often turn out to be owned by the same corporation - like Vista Outdoors - now-a-days.

This is true, CGN is pretty bad for this in general. I don't really rate this as being a great place for objective scope recommendations based on qualitative testing. Everything in the optics forum is subjective for the most part. That's why I only offer recommendations but would never take advice offered here unless there's something backing it up that has been measured.