Maybe someday I'll learn...

[lovedogs]

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?

[flounderman]

You can get a good used weaver K-4 for 50.00 and that is more scope than a 22 needs unless you are shooting competition. The all steel weaver will take a licking and keep on ticking.

[lovedogs]

I'll probably get roasted for this but I just have to tell what I think of the old Weavers. Back in the early '70's we could order a K-4 from JG Rifle Ranch in Turner, Mt. for $25. Back then I was a Weaver man. I had a few that were good. But over the next thirty years I'd owned 52 Weaver scopes. I didn't think I was too tough on them, except a few that I knew I broke. All the rest would work for a few years then not hold zero or got impossible to sight in. Back when Weaver was in El Paso I had Weavers on guns, at least one back in El Paso for repair, and one on the way in the mail. One day I got fed up and quit sending them in. I just tossed them in the trash and bought other brands.

One day I got tired of seeing the ad in all the rags where it showed a half of a scope mounted on a rifle with a caption something like "Why pay twice as much for a scope half as good"...or something like that. I wrote to Weaver and told of my past experience with them. Their CEO at that time (now with Leupold, I think) wrote back and made me an offer. He sent me a new 3X9 and told me to use it for a year. If I didn't like it I could send it back and if I liked it he'd sell it to me at cost. How could I refuse that?

While hunting coyotes I took a fall in the snow and broke that scope but it had been so good I ordered another. That replacement has been on the same old 788 .22-.250 for 13 years now. I hear praises all the time for the old Weavers but that wasn't my experience. The new ones are, in my opinion, far better. Better optics, better adjustments and more reliable. Nothing pisses me off more than to fire multiple shots at a real trophy and find my scope has crapped out and causes me to miss...go home and put it on paper and find it's off a mile and won't adjust anymore. That hasn't happened with the new Weavers like it has with the old steel ones.

[lovedogs]

By the way, the original comments I made about the .22 scopes...I received the new Weaver rimfire scope. It fit on the 77/22 perfectly. It looks like it's a real quality scope for a .22. I've only been able to shoot with it one time. The sight-in was going well, ragged holes at 25 yds. and under a half-inch at 50. I needed to make some minor adjustments but the wind came up. I think I got it sighted in but can't be sure as a 10 to 15 m.p.h. wind was messing with me at the 50 yd. line. Anyway...to report on the new Weaver Rimfire 2X7...it looks like a winner.

[ole 5 hole group]

I had a few Weaver problems back in the 60's early 70's and got away from them until the mid-80's when I discovered several benchrest shooters were using Weavers - they were a little on the heavy side making weight but they were solid as a rock and continue to be to this day IMO. However, most of the scopes/red dots I use today are Leupold - just cus.

[Cosmiceyes]

I still have,and use my "old" Weavers which are 2.(1.5x4.5,4x fine cross hair)I have a new Weaver 2x10x32.I ordered a larger objective,but Bud at Bud's gun-shop(Virginia) doesn't listen or generally likes to impose what he thinks as superior.Needed it now so on my Ruger 77 in .280 Rem.Never a problem on any of them,except the light gathering ability of the 1.5x4.5,and the 2x10.In the Virginia woods I have to wait 30 minutes after I see well with my naked eye at sun up.
I used the 4x on 22LR Ruger 10/22 for years in west Texas on the ranch.I bought the Ruger 77 in 1976,and put it on there.
I have a TC Contender rifle with a match bbl. I ordered 3ea.3x9 Bushnell Scopes just for 22's.Midway sale normal $50 by 2 get one free. 2 of them are fine at all magnifications,and are Marc's 10/22 an Mike's Marlin 60 with the Medallion.The one I put on my TC blurred out the cross hairs,below 4,and above7. I ordered a Nikon 3x9 just for 22 LR with the dots for drop range on the cross hairs. $159.00 the most I ever paid for a 22 Scope. What can I say,but WOW! That dot when sighted in where the directions say to hits dead on at all marks to 150 yards. I have purchases a Remington 597 equipped with a 3x9 ,and have no problem with it.(the scope)Trigger pull is a good 16 pounds.(sucks)So it is apart in my garage getting new hammer extractor,and tune.I will be putting the Nikon on the Remington,and the Remington/whatever on the TC.The why is the TC is not my hunting 22,but the 597 is.
Attachment 75885Attachment 75886
One is 1.5x4.5 Weaver before I bought the Bushnell.The other is the Bushnell shot by Marc.Even in their 20's enjoy hanging out at the range.West End Gun Club 22 LR only area.

[Victor N TN]

I caught a neat little Tasco 3 X 9 X 50 on sale for $40 at Wally World. I put it on my 10/22 and it performed very well. I moved it to my 25-06 just to see how it would hold up. It did so well I left it on there and put the Leupold in the safe.

Good luck,
Victor

[Lloyd Smale]

another one here that doesnt by into the old weavers being something specail. I think ive seen more old k series scopes with yellow lenses and no gas left in them then even old tascos. The new generation of weaver scopes is 10 times the scope those old ones were.

[pull the trigger]

I had an old weaver go bad as I was zoomin in on a doe once. I got a used M8 4x on ebay for a c note and love it.