I recently bought a Ruger 77/22 from a friend and it has an old 4x32 Bushnell Sportview on it. Seems like an adequate scope for what it is, although I haven't really put it to the test - only about 40 rounds fired at short range. I only plan to use it for small game hunting - no competitions or long-range shooting.

Two questions:
1) Is the Bushnell Sportview a definite "throw it away now" scope, or is it decent enough for my purpose?
2) I always pony up and pay for decent glass for my rifles, but since this is just for small game I'm really looking to control cost. If the Sportview is a dud, any recommendations for a decent .22 scope for under $100?

Thanks in advance.

I've had very good luck with Nikon Prostaff Rimfire scopes. The 4X seems to be unavailable now, but I've also used the 3-9. The prices hover around $110.00, so just a bit over your budget, but used prices are of course cheaper.

Econo scopes seem to fail at precisely the wrong time. I think a scope should be as accurate and reliable as the rifle wearing it. Maybe more so.

The scope is "fine" as in - it works as a scope. You can really do better than that for only a small amount of money. A dedicated rimfire scope from a company like Vortex or one of the Bushnell Trophy scopes will serve you much better.

I've had to catch myself from falling into the "it's only a .22, doesn't need a good scope" pit a few times. This is wholly untrue, IMO. When you consider I spend more time behind the trigger of my .22's than all my other guns COMBINED, it should have the best glass of anything I own!

It will cost you over $300 but in the long run it really is a $28.00 scope. I wanted a 3x-9x with EFR (extended focal range) Leupold scope for my air rifle but eh (at that time) $307 price tag kept me away. I tried to go cheap and bought some others and Bushnell's both their scope and their service dept was the pits (if it says Bushnell, it will need service was my experience). During this time several of the Leupolds showed up on EBAY and always went for $275-$290.00. Some were older that the seller bought for less than $275. So this made them a $28.00 scope if new ones were only $307. +1 on both Michael Michalski and Clayman's posts.

Short of post-Apocalyptic rabbits mutating into dangerous game, I would leave the scope there until it stuffs up.

If money and size are not issues, I don't see why we should deliberately put inferior scopes on .22RFs, though.

On our own .22s, I have replaced the constantly centred rubbish with an old Weatherby Imperial 2-7x32 by Hertel & Reuss and old B.Nickel scopes - because they are here and I can

The reason that most .22s end up with cheap scopes is that cheap scopes (air rifle scopes in the main in fact) is that it is only those scopes that will parallax down to the closer ranges.

Most centrefire ( or expensive ) scopes have a 100 yd/m minimum.

I quite like the nikko stirling panamax scope for air rifles and .22s.

Those Weaver V-16 scopes are great for rimfire. I have several and really like them. The parallax adjust down real close and they track well and hold zero well.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
The reason that most .22s end up with cheap scopes is that cheap scopes (air rifle scopes in the main in fact) is that it is only those scopes that will parallax down to the closer ranges...

That might be the best reason for putting such scopes on .22s but I doubt if it is the one many buyers think of. Price and size would be top of the list, I bet.

How much of a problem do you think parallax is under 100 yards in shooting rabbits, for instance? The only full-size scope I ever noticed the problem on was one that got bent; it would still work at 60 yards but gave noticeable reticle wobble at closer ranges.

In regard to parallax at long distances, I saw a Leupold YouTube video that said it was really so minimal at normal ranges that the big-game hunter, at least, should forget about it.

When I talk of parallex in this context I mean focus at short range. You set the parallex down to say 50ft then use the eyepiece focus.

Thanks to all for the replies. Good info. Sounds like I definitely can't get away with going the cheap route. Might work for a time but not worth the risk in the long run. I'll keep the SportView only as a backup.

Given the rings sitting on this rifle, bolt clearance could be an issue with any objective/eyepiece larger than 28mm. Any suggestions there?

I have an old Nickel 1-4 and a wee .22 scope that come into that ocular-housing size but, generally, I think you will have trouble finding much that small nowadays, at least in scopes meant for centrefires.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
The reason that most .22s end up with cheap scopes is that cheap scopes (air rifle scopes in the main in fact) is that it is only those scopes that will parallax down to the closer ranges...

That might be the best reason for putting such scopes on .22s but I doubt if it is the one many buyers think of. Price and size would be top of the list, I bet.

How much of a problem do you think parallax is under 100 yards in shooting rabbits, for instance? The only full-size scope I ever noticed the problem on was one that got bent; it would still work at 60 yards but gave noticeable reticle wobble at closer ranges.

In regard to parallax at long distances, I saw a Leupold YouTube video that said it was really so minimal at normal ranges that the big-game hunter, at least, should forget about it.

It's a problem when you can't focus on the reticle and bunny at the same time!

I head shoot rabbits for the pot and so need to be pretty accurate with a .22.

This is the problem rather than error caused purely by the parallax per se.

I have several nice .22 rimfire rifles I use for small game hunting. Two scopes I like are the Leupold VX-1 2-7x rimfire scope and the Weaver RV 2.5-7x rimfire scope. If you look around on the internet you can buy the Leupold for about $185 and the Weaver for about $150. The Leupold 2.5x and 4x compact rimfire scopes are also excellent.

I bought a 1 power Vortex muzzle loader scope from Camera Land when on sale for about $60 and it has worked well on a 22.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
...It's a problem when you can't focus on the reticle and bunny at the same time!

I head shoot rabbits for the pot and so need to be pretty accurate with a .22.

This is the problem rather than error caused purely by the parallax per se.

I understand your pain but wonder if it might be possible to shoot a rabbit with a fuzzy reticle.

The European fast focus really does have meaning because our eyes focus differently in poor light and good, and I notice it when getting up early to sit for deer.
However, because I deliberately use scopes 50 years old and hunt in wet weather, I tape up the fast focus and the power ring, just in case. Not having Tourette syndrome, I will try to cope with the furry post if a big one comes past at first light.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:
...It's a problem when you can't focus on the reticle and bunny at the same time!

I head shoot rabbits for the pot and so need to be pretty accurate with a .22.

This is the problem rather than error caused purely by the parallax per se.

I understand your pain but wonder if it might be possible to shoot a rabbit with a fuzzy reticle.

The European fast focus really does have meaning because our eyes focus differently in poor light and good, and I notice it when getting up early to sit for deer.
However, because I deliberately use scopes 50 years old and hunt in wet weather, I tape up the fast focus and the power ring, just in case. Not having Tourette syndrome, I will try to cope with the furry post if a big one comes past at first light.

I am in constant awe of your one battle against the inexorable march of progress!

I do think shooting with those scope is cool though.

Head shooting rabbits means a 1/2" target which with subsonic ammuntion and field positions means about 75 yards max, not being able to see the reticle particularly at low light would mean I coudn't shoot well enough to risk wounding more than kill.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghubert:

... I am in constant awe of your one battle against the inexorable march of progress!
...

Well, (read it as 'So', in 2017 vernacular) you might see it as akin to an interest in vinyl records, which, even in the opinion of the guy who invented Living Stereo, is a bit naff since CDs. But no, I'm hoping some modern maker will admit the the emperor has no clothes and make a techno-retro model we can trust for its design, not just a lifetime warranty.

Modern scopes with their delicate innards are fine for varmint shooting etc but folly for anything more serious, in my opinion. It probably all came about because Redfield and Weaver were spooked by the success of B&L in the mid-'50s. And, like VHS pipping Beta, they seemed to have licensed constantly centred reticles to so many other brands that the crazy idea became the norm.

Why was it a crazy idea? Because they took lenses that served well fixed solidly in the scope and slung them in a weighty tube on springs, to be rocked around with every shot - just to save half an hour when mounting the scope.

Cheers

If it ain't broke don't go fix'en it is my policy...And in my opinion if its on a 22 and it works, that's all you need, if it crashes and it probably won't then is the time to look for another..I have a scope on my best uncles 22 that he passed on to me and it still has the old J2.5 Weaver on it and its been there for about 70 years or whenever the first year of production was..I have another Win. mod 63 with an older Leupolld 3X that I had on hand at the time some 30 plus years ago..and my latest is a 7/8" Leupold Alaskan on a Win 63 and its perfect, but expensive as hell..I have found the old scopes to be just fine at to function on a fun gun..not a target rifle., but I shoot cans,rabits, maybe a coyote on occasion, a miss or malfunction is no big deal to me, but that's when I would toss it I suppose..

Id suggest let common since be your guide.

As a purely personal preference, for big game hunting and for a .22 RF, I prefer a scope in the ~2 - 7x range. I have a Weaver 2.5-7 on one of my .22RFs and a Nikon 3-9 EFR on my other one. I can make a case why each is better than the other.

The big thing is I’m confident with both. And for me confidence is a very important commodity.

I’d stick with what you have for the time being. If, after much more practice, you dislike it or lose confidence in it, replace it. Otherwise keep it.

JFWIW.