Redfield widefield

[scootrd]

If Redfield reinstated the Widefield line again using Modern MFG Technologies Would you Purchase one?
I miss my little 4X one.

[eye shot]

I would buy more than one if they would leave it the same but for up dating the glass.

[wink_man]

In a heartbeat, I loved those Denver scopes, I own several and like Eyeshot, I'd definitely buy more than one.

Another I'd buy several of would be the old Weaver El Paso steel tube scopes with micro trac adjustments. The V series, V4.5(1.5 to 4.5) V7(2X7) and V9(3X9).

While I currently own a few of each, if I could get my hands on a  half a dozen Redfield Widefields and a half a dozen Weaver El Paso's in various persuasions, and I just might think I died and went to heaven.

I am very seriously a remnant of the 60's and fast becoming an old 'crankpot', as my kids would describe me, LMAO.

But seriously, here is a pic of a vintage Denver Redfield Low Profile Widefield 2X7 on a vintage Savage 24 .223 over 20 gauge. With see thru sights this scope(with the flat bottom) seems as though it was custom designed for this gun, great combination.

[Lloyd Smale]

never liked the tv screen scopes. Thought they were more of a gimic then anything. The old aluminators were good scopes though.

[john keyes]

I have  a vintage widefield 4x on a 7mm-08.  Every time I look through it I'm like "woah!  awesome...."    I have a little 2 3/4 in mint condition that has so far been a safequeen. 

[Savage .250]

Got an old one (but in great shape) from my brother.  Sighted in ok.  Saved me some money as I don`t have to buy one now. 

  Jury out on ....If I`d buy one if they were re-introducted.     
 

[charles p]

Can't see why grinding off the top and bottom of a lens would benefit it unless there was some sort of imperfection on the edge of the initial lens.  Seems like a gemmick to me. 

They were good scopes in their day.

[eye shot]

You don't watch a round TV at home do ya? The Widefield, Illuminator, 3200, 6400, and TX27 is why they were #1 and not Luepold. No gemmick or imperfections you can mount them low and there built like a tank.

[Lloyd Smale]

I have to agree. Whats the advantage between what they did and taking the same scope and making it the same size but round.  The front objective on them is round so all the square rear can be doing is blocking the top and bottom of the field of view. they made claims that they had a wider feild of view but in reality really didnt have any wider field of view then some of there competitors. Sorry but it was nothing but a gimmic. Simmons tried copying them for a while after they were discontinued but it didnt last long. 

Can't see why grinding off the top and bottom of a lens would benefit it unless there was some sort of imperfection on the edge of the initial lens.  Seems like a gemmick to me. 

They were good scopes in their day.

[scootrd]

I loved 'em 
Front objective was not round
As Eye Shot Stated.... built like a tank. I miss mine . 

[WD242]

Give me one of them 1 3/4 x 5 with post/crosshair.

[wink_man]

I loved 'em 
Front objective was not round
As Eye Shot Stated.... built like a tank. I miss mine . 

Front objective lens was actually dependent on which Widefield model it was. The Widefield has a round front objective lens, but the Widefield Low Profile had the TV style front Objective. I have both styles in 2X7 I have that Low Profile Widefield shown in the post above on the Savage 24, and I have a Widefield with the front round objective on a Remington 7400 in .308.

Give me one of them 1 3/4 x 5 with post/crosshair.

Here ya go:

But I must admit, it's not a post & crosshair, it's a duplex recticle, and the scope is mounted on my sons Ithaca 37 12 gauge fully rifled slug barrel.


Oh, and Lloyd, incidentally, that Illuminator scope you're fond of was also made in a Low Profile Widefiled with the tv screen lens  on the objective and ocular ends, they were one helluva scope, ahead of their time, truly wish I had one today.

[Steve E]

I really liked the Low Pro Widefield with the TV style front and rear lens. I really hated the copies with the round objectives and ocular lens with something inside the scope to give a TV view impression. I would buy one in a heartbeat if they reintroduced them.

Steve E.......

[Doug B.]

Give me one of them 1 3/4 x 5 with post/crosshair.

I own two of these and would consider purchasing a third if price/condition were right. They are fine scopes with great optics.

[Freezer]

I own three low profile Redfields, two 2x7 and one 3x9. I'd but another in a heart beat. I see no need for the round top and bottom and would opt for a lower profile. Game animals are not round. I don't need the extra top and bottom.

[Cabin4]

I never owned a widefield but I assume they offered a wider FOV than the typical scope of thier lens size. Am I correct of this?

[Doug B.]

There are some that might disagree, but I believe that is correct. It sure looks like it when sighting.

[Cabin4]

I decided to do a little research on this. Hears what Chuck Hawks has to say about the Widefield. It s appears they did have a fairly significant wider FOV than a similar scope of similar lens size.

" I still hear negative comments from fellow shooters, like "strange Redfield," and "those scopes with the funny flattened bell housings." I am sure that the Widefield concept never caught on with most shooters, certainly not to the extent Redfield had hoped it would.

This is unfortunate, because the Widefield design really works. Widefield scopes do have a wider than normal field of view and they allow a low mounting position on most rifles.

Their field of view is approximately 30% greater than similar scopes and that can matter in the woods, or when trying to track running game. It allows for faster target acquisition, particularly at close range. This can, of course, be a life saving advantage if suddenly confronted by a charging animal.

There is no doubt that a rifle with a low mounted scope handles faster and better than the same rifle wearing a scope in a high mount. A low mount makes it easier for the shooter to quickly align his or her eye with the scope, and allows a firmer contact between cheek and stock comb for more accurate shooting."

http://www.chuckhawks.com/redfield_widefield_scopes.htm

[eye shot]

Low is better. I tried to mount two different Bushnells in low rings on a H&R USH but they hit the hammer. I got out the old Redfield Widefield no problem plenty of room to spare. Chuck hunting with a guy walking an old RXR track. When we got on RR bridge he tripped and droped his new .243- 700Rem. with Widefield between the ties 12' below on the rocks. I thought he was going to cry. The scope had a 3/8" triangle dent in the side, he thought it was shot. I said try it at 200yds on a dirt clod and it was still right on. Out of all the newer scopes I have my go too is the old Redfield Widefield.

[scootrd]

Very Cool

Found this old 1970 Ad on the internet  for the 2.75x , 4x, 6x Fixed.



Found this old 1971 Ad on the internet  for the new 2-7 and 3-9 variables

[31 bertram]

I could be way off base here but the whole deal is just plain weird.  Back when I was a young man in the 70's I thought that Leupold and Redfield were arch rivals.  So now they (Leupold) brings back the scopes that they virtually put out off buisness years ago and did'nt even bring back the widefield which was the flagship of the Redfield line, the very thing that separated Redfield from the pack.  I used a 3x9 widefield for years, and have used Leupold for years also. 
  So Don Burris left Redfield and started Burris. By the way,  I love my Burris scopes and have been using them exclusivley for the past few years.   Anyway, it just makes you wonder what folks are thinking.
31 bertram     

[Cabin4]

A deep desire to bring innovation to the market place for hunters and shooters. Raise the bar of competition by differentiating your products from others. Oh , and make a good buck while doing it