redfield revenge 6-18x44

[chuckinator56]

Good evening Savage shooters! I'm new here maybe there is already info somewhere on this scope. I'm thinking of purchasing one of these to replace the bushnell elite 3200 4-12 x42 on my 12 fv .223. The bushnell is a decent scope ,holds zero and tracks well but is REALLY particular about eye position . Ok from the bench but almost unusable in the field really hard to get the proper sight picture. Anyway if anyone has experience with the redfield revenge 6-18x44 I would appreciate your input. Apparently these scopes have been discontinued butbthere are a few left out there.

[WV1951]

It sounds like you don't have it in hand to look through. I looked through a 3-9 recently and didn't see anything spectacular about it. You will probably find the sight picture just as tight as your Bushnell, if not more so at 18x. The Elite you have is generally a well liked piece so I am not sure you will find the Revenge any better.

[FiveInADime]

Good evening Savage shooters! I'm new here maybe there is already info somewhere on this scope. I'm thinking of purchasing one of these to replace the bushnell elite 3200 4-12 x42 on my 12 fv .223. The bushnell is a decent scope ,holds zero and tracks well but is REALLY particular about eye position . Ok from the bench but almost unusable in the field really hard to get the proper sight picture. Anyway if anyone has experience with the redfield revenge 6-18x44 I would appreciate your input. Apparently these scopes have been discontinued butbthere are a few left out there.

Hey there.

Just my opinion and it isn't worth all that much.

I think you'd do better saving up some more money and getting a nicer Leupold, Vortex, Zeiss, even a Nikon Monarch, etc.

I think the Redfield is a lateral move, at best, for you.




Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[J.Baker]

I don't think the Bushnell scope is your problem here. My 3-9x Elite 3200 isn't sensitive at all, so I can't imagine the 4-12x would be drastically different. Sounds to me like you either have a stock fit issue (length of pull, comb height, etc.), your rings are too tall, or you need to adjust the eye relief so that it's the correct distance when shooting off-hand (or prone, or whatever your predominate shooting position is in the field).

I would guess most likely it's stock fit as the stocks that come on most rifles (even most aftermarket stocks) are still designed for shooting with open sights even though very few rifles come fitted with open sights anymore. As such, when you shoulder the rifle and get a good cheek weld you find you're eye is well below the centerline of your scope. This is because the comb height is setup for open sights and not an optic. The best way to test this is to shoulder your rifle with your eyes closed just like you were shouldering it to take a shot at a deer. Don't over think it, just let it be natural. With the rifle shouldered open your dominant eye and see where it's at in relation to the centerline of your scope.

If your length-of-pull (LOP) is to long or too short you will find yourself having to move your head forward or rearward on the stock to see through the scope. The same test explained above can be used to determine this as well.