Rifle Scopes Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

[M21guy]

So I went to my local shop to investigate rifle optics. I have had issues with my new Redfield having too much eye relief to properly mount it on my rifle with available options.

I've been seeing so much about Vortex I was curious to see for myself. My shop had two models on hand. The first one was a Diamondback 4-12, and the second on was a straight Viper in 6.5-20 I believe. This Viper wasn't a PST model.

Distance to the next road over is roughly 1500yards. There I can see peoples homes and surrounding trees. I figure if I can see that clearly the optics will be more than enough for my hunting rifle. I've got to say looking threw both Vortex scopes was sort of disappointing. I've seen better from Barska. Sight picture was pretty bad. Both were seriously hazy. Surely this can't be what all the hype is about? I know these both are not in the price point of the Razor models, but still, it is hard to imagine they are so much better than these two that are so much worse than what is considered sub par here. With the Diamondback model being what I was most interested in, I really can't say was taken by it. For twice the price of the Redfield to boot, it was a no deal.

At any rate the Redfield blew both them away in clarity near and far in side by side comparison. So I resolved to have some custom mounts made so my Redfield works well with my M7. As little as that rifle gets used the Redfield seems to be mighty nice, and inexpensive optic for it.

 

[RobG]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

Hey, if Barska and Redfield is better to you, then go for it. Different scopes for different folks.

 

[RyeDaddy]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

Suprising. I have a Vortex Diamondback 4-12x40 with the adjustable objective, AND a Redfield Revolution 3-9x40 and I find the Vortex to be clearer than the Redfield. Other people have thought the same thing.

The Redfield is on my mother's Remington 700(which stays at my house because she doesn't have a gunsafe), and any time we go to the range together she says: "I wish I had bought a scope like yours(the Vortex), it's clearer."

Maybe each scope that either company builds is an individual and can be much better or worse than others in the same lineup? Or maybe the objective being adjustable on my Vortex gives it an edge in sharpness?

I'm going to print out a resolution chart and next time I go to the range I'm going to test them, and I'll report results. Probably won't be any pictures, as I'm not a good photographer.

 

[timelinex]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: M21guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I went to my local shop to investigate rifle optics. I have had issues with my new Redfield having too much eye relief to properly mount it on my rifle with available options.

I've been seeing so much about Vortex I was curious to see for myself. My shop had two models on hand. The first one was a Diamondback 4-12, and the second on was a straight Viper in 6.5-20 I believe. This Viper wasn't a PST model.

Distance to the next road over is roughly 1500yards. There I can see peoples homes and surrounding trees. I figure if I can see that clearly the optics will be more than enough for my hunting rifle. I've got to say looking threw both Vortex scopes was sort of disappointing. I've seen better from Barska. Sight picture was pretty bad. Both were seriously hazy. Surely this can't be what all the hype is about? I know these both are not in the price point of the Razor models, but still, it is hard to imagine they are so much better than these two that are so much worse than what is considered sub par here. With the Diamondback model being what I was most interested in, I really can't say was taken by it. For twice the price of the Redfield to boot, it was a no deal.

At any rate the Redfield blew both them away in clarity near and far in side by side comparison. So I resolved to have some custom mounts made so my Redfield works well with my M7. As little as that rifle gets used the Redfield seems to be mighty nice, and inexpensive optic for it. </div></div>
I haven't compared the scopes you are talking about, and I know its a silly question but did you adjust parallax correctly? I know its 1500 yards so its infinity, but it doesn't always mean it has to be pegged all the way to the end for best clarity

 

[M21guy]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

The Viper had a side parallax adjustment. Coming from a USO Tpal on my other rifle, the Viper's was useless. Sitting there trying to dial it in, I just couldn't get a crisp resolution with it. The Diamondback was a fixed parallax optic, but so is my Redfield.

The whole reason I bought the Redfield I have, was the resolution it provided. I picked it up for the first time and was blown away by it and the price charged. To buy a similar Leupold, again it was twice the price. I never get a mid day deer. It is always early morning or about dusk. I wanted clarity for them times a day and not spend a boat load doing it. I've had the M7 since 07. It has maybe 80 rounds down the tube. It didn't make sense in spending $2500 on a USO like my tactical rifle. A couple hundred seems more fitting and the Redfield seemed to fit the best. It's too bad it has more eye relief than it is supposed to by it's spec chart.

 

[M21guy]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

The reason I used a Barska referance was I bought a used rifle someone had mounted a Barska on. It wasn't half bad for clarity. Too bad none of the internal adjustments worked. Otherwise I would have found a 22 rimfire to mount it on.

That Barska is going to be my Carlos Hatchcock "glint of scope", to see if I can send a bullet down the tube, test subject when I'm ready. If I screw that up, I got a Simmons also that is cashed.

 

[DirtyDave]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

I am debating between a Vortex Viper 2-7x32 and a Redfield 2-7x33. I have never looked through either of them, but a buddy of mine has the redfield on his .223 and says it is clearer than his Leupold.
I had started a thread about it to get some opinions
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2761927#Post2761927

 

[KE5MUJ]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

Redfield revolution glass looked stellar for the $ IMO.

 

[slowr1der]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

My advice would be to check out the Burris FFII's for a hunting scope in this price range. Much better than the Redfield to me. That being said, I can't comment on the new E1 models from Burris as I haven't used one, however, I'd like to check them out, and if they are as good as the FFII's it would be the way I'd go.

 

[M21guy]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

For the coin I didn't see a problem at all with the relatively decent clarity the Redfield provides. Especially for the limited use the rifle ever gets, it was a bargain. What sucks is the extended eye relief mine seems to have and the less forgiving eye box. If the custom mount works out for it, then fine, but if not, then I might look at the Burris. I get back to making money again, I'll just pluck a better scope on it. Maybe a NF or something similar. They a civil enough for a deer rifle. You really do get spoiled having one rifle with a USO and get annoyed by the others with lesser optics.

 

[GunKnowledge]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

This thread is very misleading, it's titled "Low Class Vortex Glass", yet you are talking about the Viper???

Low class Vortex means Crossfires...

 

[Outdoorsman9]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

I'd maybe agree with the crossfires being below par, but the diamondbacks are solid, and the vipers are great IMO

 

[TonyAngel]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

Vortex has gotten lots of kudos by many, but their products are just on par with many others out there. Vortex's claim to fame is their excellent customer service.

On a side note, I always did like the Vortex Viper in terms of bang for the buck, and mostly shot them on top of the likes of .223s and .308s. A little while back, a friend/acquantaince of mine had one on top of his .338 Ultra Mag and that was a "no go" combo. The eye relief was way too short for comfort.

 

[TexasWicked1]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Outdoorsman9</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd maybe agree with the crossfires being below par, but the diamondbacks are solid, and the vipers are great IMO </div></div>
I agree this statement whole heartedly. Vortex's line for a 3-9 is limited to the Crossfire and Diamondback. And for hunting purposes and with most popular magnification being 3-9. Diamondback is the best way to go if you wanted to buy Vortex.
Their customer service is great both on a personal and professional level.

At the same time, Redfield's are not bad either. Now owned by Leupold. Who also has great customer service.

Either way would be a great optic for you.

Have you thought about the SS 3-9?

 

[M21guy]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KSwift</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This thread is very misleading, it's titled "Low Class Vortex Glass", yet you are talking about the Viper???

Low class Vortex means Crossfires... </div></div>

What do you call it then? They do have viper PST and a regular Viper which this thing was at a lower price point than the PST series.

But that is my point. I'm seeing all these reviews and there favorable I was expecting better. Even looking at a fence post about 250 300yards off across the road it wasn't that great. Maybe they were just both lemons?

As far as SS clarity goes, nope I haven't seen an HD model, but I looked threw an old one someone had. I didn't find that extraordinary either. But way better than these two Vortex scopes I was looking at the other day. I didn't want a straight 10x on this rifle and the 3-9 costs almost 400 more than this Redfield 4-12 I bought with good clarity. I just wanted a civil hunting scope, nothing tactical with exposed turrets.

Wednesday I'll be near Middleton Wi were I could pop in an maybe see more Vortex scopes if I had the time. I was actually excited to do so before I looked at these two here, but now that seems a little like a waste of time.

 

[M21guy]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

I had a Simmons Aetec on this rifle before. Don't laugh, I got it given to me. It was a 2.8-10x44mm scope. In typical Simmons fashion it failed. That was too bad, because for the purpose it was nice. It didn't have the clarity of this new Redfield, but it was fine. On my M7 it was perfect for eye relief, height on my Leuopold rings and bases. Easy to get a good sight picture with it. I actually hated to see it die. It was just right. So when I replaced it I wanted a scope in it's price point because I'm poor and cannot afford it now, I wanted a little better clarity, a slightly higher magnification, and maybe something that wasn't going to fail during the hunt this time. I came up with the Redfield. The massive eye relief is the only draw back in getting it right for my rifle and me. So while frustrated with that, I was looking around at other options of scopes and I thought I might share my findings. I didn't want to piss off anyone.

 

[BCP]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: M21guy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wanted a little better clarity, a slightly higher magnification, and maybe something that wasn't going to fail during the hunt this time. I came up with the Redfield.
</div></div>

Friend of mine has that same model on a 300 win mag, he likes it well enough. I thought it was about like a leupold rifleman or vx-2 so not great but not bad. Personally I've always found the vortex models to have good glass for the money, their binoculars and monoculars are especially bright when you consider their price tags.

If clarity, color and brightness are your main concerns you really need to spend a little more and get a meopta/zeiss conquest they are very clear and colorful for the money.

 

[shankster..]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

I have the Vortex Viper 2-7x32 Dead-Hold BDC on my D.S. Arms FAL carbine. It is a very clear scope for the money (not NF clear) and I beat the shit out of it.

I think it is a great value optic.

 

[Beef82]

Re: Low Class Vortex Glass Quality VS Redfield

I'm kinda thinking you managed to score an abnormal Redfield. Not bashing it, hang onto it. I have a 4-12, its a fine hunting optic, personally I really like the long eye relief. I have a Bushnell 4200 3-9 that absolutely smokes it for brightness and clarity, and a Millet 4-16 that's not as good as the Bushnell but still clearer and brighter than the Redfield on the same powers. My Vortex dealer doesn't stock any of the line I'm interested in so I can't speak about them, other than my buddy having a great warranty experience with his reddot.