There is a never ending controversy over whether to get a "cheap" scope or an expensive one. It's common to hear "you get what you pay for". Then we all know of exceptions where someone buys a scope that costs less than a decent lunch. Recently I was checking zero on a good shooting Ruger 77/22, getting ready for spring varmint shooting. Normally, I use .22 centerfires for varmints but sometimes a .22 LR is just right, like gophers. About five years ago I took a gamble on a Simmons .22 Mag 3X9 scope. It worked well and I was pleasantly surprised. I don't know what happened to it, it surely was never abused, but it finally gave trouble. On both 3X and 9X it shot to the same POI but on 6X the groups were 1/2 in. higher at 25 yds. I didn't even try it at longer ranges. It also got so the reticle wandered about when adjusting the fast focus on the ocular end.
I called Simmons and was talked into sending it in for either repair or replacement. Now I'm curious to see if they repair it and I wind up with something useable or if they send a new one that may or may not be any good.
While waiting I ordered a Pentax Gameseeker II 2 X 7, one of their "economy" models. It looked real good despite being made in China but didn't allow enough bolt clearance with the 77/22 so I didn't get to try it out. It was returned.
Now I have finally gotten wised up and installed a new Weaver .22 rimfire model in 2 X 7. It fits and it checked out good mechanically. If we ever get a decent day to go shoot I'll see how it works when actually shooting. This Weaver isn't cheap. It lists for about $225 but I got one for $150. That's a lot for a .22 scope but, hopefully, it'll actually work. Kind of reminded me that we get what we pay for. The cheapies may work for a while but if you send it in enough times and wind up paying shipping and insurance enough times maybe cheap isn't so cheap. Could more expensive actually be more economical?