RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
I'm in the same position, however, I still buy the good ones just to pass on to my friends when they need one.
Decent straight 4x for 22 Hornet [Contender for squirrels]
- Thread starter Elric
- Start date
I have a 4x38 weaver classic which is really nice.... it's one of two possibilities for a marlin 444
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I draw a distinction between Cheap and Inexpensive.
Inexpensive doesn’t necessarily equate to low quality but the word “cheap” implies both low cost and low quality.
I have seen countless “cheap” scopes that would not hold a zero, had poor light transmission, were fogged, had water in them or had other failures.
In the world of optics there is little a manufacturer can do to lower the price point without also sacrificing quality. There’s just no free lunch in the world of optics. While it is possible to make an inexpensive scope, it is not possible to make a good, inexpensive scope.
When talking about new scopes, high price doesn’t always indicate high quality, but low price almost universally indicates low quality. Now, if we are talking about a used scope, the possibility of lower cost and high quality can coexist.
I had a family member that was notoriously cheap. He would buy junk and then be required to buy it twice or often three times due to failures. Ultimately, he spent MORE money than if he had just purchased an acceptable level of quality to start with. That doesn’t mean you must buy a Schmidt & Bender or a $3500 Zeiss to get a decent scope but your odds of getting a decent new scope for $35 are are NOT good.
A new Leupold scope is going to set you back at least $300 and that’s probably about the floor in terms of the cost of decent quality. That being said, you could likely pick up a used Leupold or old Japanese made scope for well under $200 and have a great piece of gear.
Inexpensive doesn’t necessarily equate to low quality but the word “cheap” implies both low cost and low quality.
I have seen countless “cheap” scopes that would not hold a zero, had poor light transmission, were fogged, had water in them or had other failures.
In the world of optics there is little a manufacturer can do to lower the price point without also sacrificing quality. There’s just no free lunch in the world of optics. While it is possible to make an inexpensive scope, it is not possible to make a good, inexpensive scope.
When talking about new scopes, high price doesn’t always indicate high quality, but low price almost universally indicates low quality. Now, if we are talking about a used scope, the possibility of lower cost and high quality can coexist.
I had a family member that was notoriously cheap. He would buy junk and then be required to buy it twice or often three times due to failures. Ultimately, he spent MORE money than if he had just purchased an acceptable level of quality to start with. That doesn’t mean you must buy a Schmidt & Bender or a $3500 Zeiss to get a decent scope but your odds of getting a decent new scope for $35 are are NOT good.
A new Leupold scope is going to set you back at least $300 and that’s probably about the floor in terms of the cost of decent quality. That being said, you could likely pick up a used Leupold or old Japanese made scope for well under $200 and have a great piece of gear.
Last edited:
Rick H
Well-Known Member
It is from 77-78. I have not mounted it. It is my spare. I do have VX I/II 2-7x33 compacts from old and new manufacture: "USA*Designed*Machined*Assembled" series of the same scope. The finish is now matte, the glass is every bit as clear but the reticule is a slightly different "Duplex". The adjustments are finger adjustable 1/4 MOA clicks instead of the old friction coin slot 1/2 MOA. All in all, new in the box, it is a better scope than the older ones. (yes, I have 4 of them)
Only 40 yrs. experience will tell me if the new adjustment and erector system is as robust and long lasting as the old. I really like the scopes for their practical magnification range, long and forgiving eye relief, light weight and compact size.
CWLONGSHOT
Well-Known Member
I always like a 6x on these 22 Hornet and Bee. Just cause thats what people used as I was impressionable.
You and I have been here before on this very distinction, probably revolvers the last time, and I do agree still. I am not careful with the term "cheap."
Roughly the vintage of most of my Leupolds, my one Redfield, a few of the Japanese scopes - 30 to 40 years and still giving good service. I don't think any of mine were considered expensive when new - certainly not the top of any of their lines, but have been very good scopes.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Back when I enjoyed hunting, I spotted “The” new rifle that I wanted (at that time.... 
)
I coveted that rifle while I saved up the money to buy it. Eventually, I was able to purchase it. Then it was time to equip that rifle with the perfect scope. I wanted a variable power Leupold that went down to 1.5 or 1.75 power and topped out around 6 power. They were available but not at a cost I could afford or even remotely justify. The compromise that I could live with turned out to be a 2 x 7 Nikon matte finished, two-piece Redfield style rings. That scope held its zero, had a beautifully clear image and worked perfectly in all regards.
)I coveted that rifle while I saved up the money to buy it. Eventually, I was able to purchase it. Then it was time to equip that rifle with the perfect scope. I wanted a variable power Leupold that went down to 1.5 or 1.75 power and topped out around 6 power. They were available but not at a cost I could afford or even remotely justify. The compromise that I could live with turned out to be a 2 x 7 Nikon matte finished, two-piece Redfield style rings. That scope held its zero, had a beautifully clear image and worked perfectly in all regards.
Last edited:
richhodg66
Well-Known Member
I have a small, gloss finish Burris on my rifle for such things, a Savage 219 in .22 Hornet which is my favorite stalking/Fox Squirrel rifle. Can't remember where I got the scope, but most likely a gun show and it is about the perfect scope for the purpose.
Probably not for your Contender, but there is a scope called the Grubee Wolf Pup which is a very good copy of the Baby Redfields that had 3/4" tubes.
Probably not for your Contender, but there is a scope called the Grubee Wolf Pup which is a very good copy of the Baby Redfields that had 3/4" tubes.
You're STILL impressionable.
Of course, that's part of why we love you!
I have long considered 6X plenty of power for a varmint rifle. For many years, I had an old fixed-six, Bushnell Scopechief Command-Post, with a fine cross-hair on my 223 varmint rifle, originally a Ruger No. 3 and later a CZ 527 Varmint-Walnut. Of course, back then I also considered 300 yards a long shot, but it was PLENTY at that range and I remember picking off small targets at that range with that power easily. The ONLY reason it's no longer on my current 223, a Contender Carbine, is that I had a Leupold 3-9 left over from a rifle I sold and my dad had given me that scope. I swapped it onto my 223, because I'm not letting that scope go and didn't want it lying fallow in the safe. GREAT scope, but 9x is not necessary for what I do.
I've owned a lot of 3-9x40s (32s and 38s) only because a 3-9 was the cheapest (least expensive) of just about any line for many years. Often, loss-leader sales were for the 3-9s. Runner up was the fabled 2-7s, of which I've had a few and still have TWO, a Redfield and a Leupold. I honestly PREFER lower powers and fixed, if possible, but the 3-9s and 2-7s sold for prices well below anything I ever actually REALLY wanted. Since they were variables, I could set it where I wanted and leave it at that - USUALLY, either the very top or very bottom.
Honestly, and back to the OP, if I'm remembering correctly WHICH thread this was, one of the older 2-7s might be just the ticket for that Hornet. I have an older Redfield 2-7x32 on my Contender 30/30 and it is slim, sleek and svelte-looking, unobtrusive, light-weight and a wonderful little scope I'll never let go. Perfect for the 30/30 and maybe even perfect for the Hornet, in the absence of a selection of fixed-power scopes.
I say slap a scope on that puppy and bide your time. The perfect scope for that Hornet will come along, but NOT if you're looking for it. Sort of like dating in high-school - when you HAVE a girlfriend, all the girls will talk to you. If you DON'T have a girlfriend, they won't even look at you. Moulds, dies for odd cartridges, scopes, sights - they're all the same. If you LOOK needy, you'll never satisfy the need.
I grew up with a K6 on a 22-250 and it’s still my favorite power for a scope. I have an ancient K6, a Burris Fullfield 6x, and a Denver Redfield 6x.
I also have some Japanese scopes that are good to go. A 4x Valor with fine crosshairs and crystal clear image is a favorite.
I have some variables, but fixed powers are my favorites.
I also have some Japanese scopes that are good to go. A 4x Valor with fine crosshairs and crystal clear image is a favorite.
I have some variables, but fixed powers are my favorites.
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
When Leupold was about to quit making scopes in OR, I had ordered a fixed 6X for my CZ .223. It took six months for them to deliver it, but it was the exact scope I wanted and it was perfect. I'll not say a bad word about Leupold.
Slughammer
Active Member
I would put the 3-9x on it and set it to 6x. I always found 6x was a great setting for squirrels. Also, its always and option to crank it up to 9x for really hard shots.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I've used and own both fixed power scopes and variable power scopes. While there are some advantages to variables, the fixed power scopes have a lot going for them. Most of the time I put variables on one setting and leave it there. So you buy a variable and use the variable function once and then it becomes a complex fixed power scope.
Edward R Southgate
Component Hoarder Extraordiniare
Weaver K4 or a V4.5 in steel .