Crossbow Nation banner

Crossbow scopes: bad value for money?

8.5K views 33 replies 21 participants last post by  miles58  
So to elaborate on this subject, and about my
Redfield Crossbow scope, i find this reticle to be quick to get on target in the Mississippi River Delta palmettos. It’s not complicated and not electronic. It’s like the old Heavy Duplex reticle for hunting guns, quick to get on target . It’s also not made anymore. Leupold sold out to Academy Sports.

I could do without the range finder because i have a dedicated handheld, and often there is just not time to range. You should range unique things around you while waiting for deer. “ that rotten stump is exactly 35 yards . “

The reticle is in the 2nd focal plane, so the power ring is a speed ring. Good glass too.
75 yard parallex setting. Not bad. 50 would have been better.
60 yards max on reticles. Perfect for woods hunting, down in the thick bottoms. View attachment 279228 View attachment 279229
I agree, the Redfield (and Leupold Crossbones) are very good scopes. I have a very similar Horton Hawke 2-7x32 on 2 of my bows. For my eyes, they are as good as anything I have looked through, other than the Vortex XBR or Huskemaw, (and far better clarity than most newer crossbow scopes I have tried). They are much lighter than either. The bold reticle is unlit, but easily visible at legal shooting times here. One reservation I would have with the Wrath 430 the OP has is these scopes are more suitable for crossbows that are not shooting 400 fps. I tried the Horton on my Toxin (390 fps) and it was great on targets. The places I hunt, I don’t want a scope set close to 7 power to make the reticle subtentions useful.