Marlin Firearms Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Okay in 4-2-2003 I bought the Redfeild Golden 5 Star scope 3 x 9 x 50 mm Truplex Reticle on a special buy offer $135. shipped from midway.
Its made in the Philippines and I never mounted it, its still in box. I'm not putting it up for sale in this thread but might if I don't use it. At one time I would have mount it without even a though but now "thanks to the guys on MO" it might look too big to me now on a lever rifle.
I believe this scope was made when Weaver owned the Redfeild Brand.
What do you think and do you have a scope with a 50 mm adjective bell/lens on a lever rifle?
T:hmmmm: NY
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,223 Posts
Those were odd days for the Redfield name. The name was in a few adds in 2005 or so, introducing a Redfield come back but it wasn't to be. Meade then put the name in mothballs for some use in the future. As it turns out Leupold came along and did what they did... a very good thing.

The 50 mm bell is waaay too large for my liking... ok on a high powered bolt but lever gun dynamics just do not accommodate a large high mounted scope. The magnification is generally too great, the scope is probably large, heavy and overkill. Also the low stock comb would preclude a good cheek weld. The two, scope and rifle, would defeat each others best respective attributes.

Smaller is generally better, 1-4 or 2-7 or 3-9 x 40, much more functional and pleasant to use.

Ss
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks for your responds but it sounds very general to this forum. The suggestion that the 3 X 9 X 40 mm would be a better fit on a lever rifle than a 3 x 9 50 mm makes me think that either size scope is a wash. But a would agree that a scope size of 1 x 20 mm to 2 x 7 x 33 mm would look more fitting. I'm not concern of looks or weight but rather the benefits a such a scope has to offer.

Again I really appreciate your responds and will consider your advice.:hmmmm:
T:biggrin: NY
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,223 Posts
Just keep in mind it's just my opinion.
I mention the 3-9 x 40 because it's what I have on my. 338 which is large enough to accommodate the size and has the range capacity for the magnification.
All other levers either have low power or no optics.
Ss
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
There's more to it than just "looks". The larger the bell, the higher the rings necessary to mount the scope. If you like a very high cheek/jaw weld that may not be an issue otherwise you my need to add a rollover pad to the stock to get the proper cheek weld for both accuracy and comfort. You should be able to mount the rifle with your eyes closed, open them and have a full field of view in the scope if it is properly fitted. Just my 2 cents.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
vrkar10 I think to many lever rifle shooters put to much thought into cheek weld, we're talking about a lever rifle not a bench rifle and us lever rifle shooters we have to deal with quick equation and bench style is out the window. When high rings set is used and its not like using see threw rings you still have a cheek weld and practice adjusts the mind memory action as in all firearms.

I used see threw rings for 35 years and always shot MOA at 100 to 150 yards. If you think about it when you shoot with a scope of 20 mm adjective bell and you move to 50 mm you're only move to a high set of rings to accommodate the 50 mm bell which maybe about is about .250" of an inch higher. You got to remember the eye piece of the 20 mm adjective scope eye piece is about the same of the scope with a 50 mm adjective bell. So its already raised off the receiver to accommodate the 50 mm adjective scope. if you think .250" of an inch is a lot and would make that much of a difference well do what you must. But I don't see it that way in my since 12 Y/O to 65 Y/O years of shooting.

I can shoot rings around the average shooter with see threw or high rings with a 50 mm scope and a cheek weld holds second over practice in my world. So I really don't have much stock in a cheek weld.
But thank you for your in put its most appreciated.
T:hmmmm: NY
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,463 Posts
As I have stated here before my 444P has worn a Leupold 3x10x50 since I bought it back in 89. Doesn't look out of place. Lots of light for low light swamp & evening hunting. Pay no attention to what we say here...........All are just OUR opinions..............Fit it with what ever you like and be happy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Yes I agree with you and appreciate your advice.

The Redfield scope I have is the better part of two companies "Weaver and Redfield". It has the Weaver style one piece tube (less parts and caskets) appose to the now Redfield scope which is a two piece tube (more parts and caskets) which in my view a one piece tube is a better built frame. I might be the only one on MO who gets it.
T:biggrin: NY
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top