Thanks Don. I heard that Leupold has bought Redfield and wondered if the scopes were on par with each other and/or covered by the same warranty.
Would anyone else here recommend Redfield too?
I have no experience with the new Redfield product. There were several years throughout the 1990's and early 2000's where the Redfield name was dragged through the mud by it's previous owner. Since they're now owned and made by Leupold I have faith and am willing to bet the quality is very much on par with Leupold's regular line. One thing's for sure, the new Redfields have to be much better than the inexpensive Redfield stuff that was being produced overseas up until recently. The older original Denver made Redfield stuff was of pretty high quality as well. If you can find those old scopes in good condition, snag them up. I've hear good things about the new stuff, so I say why not?
Even though their are more expensive I really like my Burris scopes. I have 3 of them 2 FullFields and I have a Signature Select on my favorite 338 Win Mag and it is a great performing scope. has yet to let me down. It has Posi Loc on it and I sighted it in 4 years ago and has not needed any kind of adjustment over the last 4 hunting seasons!
Talking scopes is a difficult thing as hunters see things differently partly because, in my opinion, that are literally look through scopes with different eyes. Looking through a Buddy's scope may or may not be a good thing for comparing scopes as it may not be tuned to your eyesight and more than likely is not.
There are a good number of quality scopes available today at prices of up to $200. The Nikon Prostaff and new Redfields are both quality scopes and are relative bargains in today's market place.
From someone who owns dozens of scopes, it is my firm opinion that there is a quality difference when prices go up. In the numerous scope comparisons I've done myself, it's no secret that my most pricey scopes are the best of the bunch when compared side by side. To say that someone else needs to spend "X" amount of $$ to get an excellent scope is difficult to do.
Some have no desire to be better equipped at first and last light, and that's fine with me. But it is certainly my opinion that better "coating" and glass will make a difference in low light. It is certainly also true that for most hunting applications scopes such as the two mentioned and others like Burris FFII, Bushnell Elite 3200, Leupold Rifleman and VXI series are perhaps as much scope as most will ever need.
If given the choice though, I'd hunt with a Zeiss or upper lever Leupold (or similar) and think they can be a great choice for a hunter looking for quality glass.
Burris was started by brother's, Don and I forget the other's name. Befor starting Burris they worked for Redfield in Denver designing scopes, at that they are very good. Not long after they opened shop, I was living in Greeley and went in to find a 1" set of rings for a dovetail 22 rim fire. They had the rings and I still use them today, very very nice set of rings. But, Don sure needed to work on his customer relations! I got my rings, left and never went back. Maybe I just caught him on a bad day!
When it comes to scent, there are basically two types; those that attract and those that mask. I've tried both on many occasions. There are lots and lots of "doe in heat" scents, designed to attract a big buck into range. I've also used a "cow in heat" scent while elk hunting.
Another scent would almost be better named as a "coverup smell". The main goal is to cover up human odor or mask it. Though I don't believe you can ever totally eliminate all human...