Simmons scope for Cricket ??
What about the Simmons .44 Mag 6-24×44 scope ? I´m in a search for a lightweight scope with at least 20x optics but don´t know anything about the Simmons. Not familiar with the brand at all. I have a Hawke Varmint 6-24×44 which doesn´t really cut it, opticswise , and i have an MTC Viper 10×44 on my EdGun and while a good scope the 10x is too little for anything beyond 50 meters. So a new acceptable quality scope is needed for the becoming Cricket .25 and the Simmons look like a good candidate due its very light weight . On paper at least . Can also be just waste of money, like the Hawke … I don´t need no S&B, Swarovski nor March for my air-rifles though since IMO that´s overdoing it.
Anyone with first hand experience/knowledge about Simmons ??
All Replies
I just bought a Bushnell Legend off the TAG, it fill my need for a cheap scope. 😀 And while it is not as crisp as my Leupolds it is a pretty nice scope for the money I paid for it.
Now about Knifemakers small dick……. He does have a very small dick, trouble is I can’t remember if it was his wife or my wife that told me that. 😕
A clear and quality piece of glass, yes I did say glass, is always the proper scope for the job at hand.
I have heard nothing but good things about the ClearRidge line of scopes.
Regards,
Roachcreek
A bushnell legend takes some beating for the money..
FYI knifemaker – i´m not cheap nor am i one of those that can´t afford to buy the stuff i want (in reasonable range,of course) but i don´t need a Swarovski,March nor an S&B for the shooting i do with my airguns. I´m not shooting those in anything exceeing 65m and 98% of the time the range varies from 25-50m. I rather put the expensive,high-end scopes on my powderburners which are used for ranges upto 300m. Period.
H 😯 😯 T just put it right in his comment on the Atlas knock-off thread. I buy a scope that fills my needs for airgunning at the range i use them. I shoot as tight a group with my “under par” MTC Viper than i do with a Swarovski upto the range i do my AIRGUN shooting on, quaranteed. I don´t hunt at night (ALL airgun hunting is prohibited here) nor am i trying to shoot the EdGun at 100m. If i go over 65m i take either a .22LR or a .17HMR any day over my EdGun.
The comment about people being cheap when getting an expensive air-rifle and not buying as expensive scope for it is ridiculous. If you can get a good scope (for your needs) for much less money why the hell would one spend several thousand for something that does the same exact job for a fraction of the price ? For bragging rights ?? Substitute for a small dick ?? Now ,I don´t need no junk either so i´m not after the cheapest POS one can find – i just want a scope that fills the need, works as it should and to a reasonable price.
I quess the Simmons is nothing to have then. What about the Clearidge ??
Mike,
Your a scope snob. 😀
The other thing that gets me is air gunners think they have to have 20 and 30 power on their air rifles, are they blind or what?
I have never had a air gun scope over 15 power with the exception of two Hawkes that was so damn blurry in the higher powers to render them useless at maximum power. I have had three Bushnells that were 5×15 used the higher power simply because that was where the mildots were set up at, but I would rather it be set at 10 power for the mildots.
I have one eye as you know, and the other one is in need of glasses, but I hit shot sub MOA at 280 yards and 12 oz cans at 500 yards and 552 yards with my Haley 257 and a Leupold on 14 power. Crowpopper posted some groups yesterday on the Yellow shot on 3 power and on 9 power with that excellent lieetle .177 200 of his, they were the same size on each power.
RC
It absolutely amazes me how people will spend the money on top high end airguns and then buy cheap chinese junk scopes to put on them. 😯 All the while crying when the guns don’t group the same day to day. Give me a frigg’n break. 😆
The fantastic warranty of Hawke Scopes notwithstanding, (you are more than likely going to need it. And probably more than once!), Their weight, and optical quality as RC so eloquently put it SUCK’s! Ever wondered why so many people brag on Hawk warranty work. Well it’s because so many people have to use it! They DO NOT hold up. Not eve to mild mannered PCP’s. Pitiful!!! The Simmons USE to be a very good Japanese Quality scope. Now, Just more Chinese Junk. Abit, better than average Chinese Junk.
I think the Germans have it right. Buy a Great Scope, and put it on a less expensive gun, and you have a good combo for life. Buy a Cheap scope and put it on a Great Rifle, and be sorry for life! It will let you down over and over again.
They believe in Good optics, and for very good reasons.
We seem to believe in throwaway crap more and more these days. Whatever happened to pride and knowing the difference between quality and shit?
I can tell you this, I can hunt by the moon, or stars, no night scoped needed. I can see .177-.22-.25 pellet holes in a black target face at 100 yards just fine without a spotting scope. And I DON’T have to walk down range to check the target to know how I just shot. And I don’t need high mag. “X” to do it. I know that when I dial a range in, It is exactly the same every time. And when I scope a critter that requires looking thru the scope almost directly toward the sun, I can see a sharp crisp image. Not a washed out- looking thru bath water image. No extended shade needed. Why? QUALITY OPTICS!!! As an added bonus, I can watch the pellet enter the target any time of day, and from any angle. No special lighting needed. Hell, it’s almost like shooting tracers. 😯
You are not going to get Quality from Chinese optics. May be some day. But they are a far cry form being there by a long shot today.
But quality and cry once. Buy crap, and cry forever! 😉
I mean, isn’t this why you bought a top rated AG in the first place. Superior Performance?
Putting a Simmons on a Cricket makes about as much sense as putting cheap tires on a Ferrari.
Just say’n.
KnifeMaker
I have read that the reticle is very large.
And yes to date having owned two and looked through a few, Hawkes suck in clarity, but make up for it in weight and length. 🙄
I have two scopes made by the same company, they are only 4.5×14, one is a 30 MM the other is a one inch, however both are under 12 inches and under one lb, withcrystal clear optics.
Pretty good transferable warrantee also, I got both of them used off Ebay, and the manufacturer lets you send them back to the factory for upgrades like target turrents and different reticles.
A little more money than a Simmons, but American quality and a fair price, but good grief your air gun cost more than most powder burners and is more accurate to 50 yards than almost all powder burners.
I think they are called Leupolds. 😛
Regards,
Roachcreek
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Here is a formal review of a current Hawke Sidewinder Tactical by a seasoned scope reviewer I know very well when the Hawke ST was first redesigned. He actually tests them. He is not afraid to slam Hawke or any brand. This review compares a Hawke, Leupold, Burris, Sightron, and a few others. The point is the redesigned newer Hawkes are much more competitive with the moderate lines of US and Japanese scopes optics wise. He speaks to the upgrade in optics with the redesign of the Sidewinder Tactical’s a few years ago (which is huge). The Hawke Sidewinder SR 30 redesign was much more recent. I own more Leupold’s than Hawkes but the recent ones have fallen off a bit in QC (being nice) – especially the more moderate lines. A lifetime warranty has become important for Leupold as well. My Bushnell Elite problems and dealing with their horrible customer service is another story. If you read some of the independent European lab reviews of global scopes the Leupold’s perform relatively poorly compared to most as do Nightforce. Zeiss really kicks their butt on a similar scope comparative basis for example. The ugly facts are the best Chinese scopes are now getting competitive with some of the moderate lines of major brands recently and many don’t like it.
The Simmons scope you refer to also has some decent reviews out there given the price and product positioning in the market. Good bang for the buck.
“Optical Quality
This is where most of my original complaints with Sidewinder 30 were, and this is where I found the most improvement. The glass is much improved. Part of it is undoubtedly due to a smaller objective lens. It is simply easier to control image quality when you do not have to bend light as much. However, overall stray light suppression is much better. This scope is much less susceptible to flare and ghost images.
Overall, I found that the scope resolved fine detail quite well, although contrast was not quite as good. Side by side with Sightron S2 Big Sky, I could see a bit more detail with the Sightron regardless of lighting conditions. Perhaps, more importantly, the image with the Sightron “popped” a bit more, so I could pick stuff up quicker. With the Hawke, I could see almost as much detail, once I had some time to focus on them, but it definitely took more time and attention. Another scope that I spent a lot of time comparing to the Hawke is the SWFA Super Sniper 10×42 (non-HD version). Right in the center of the field of view, Hawke actually out resolved the S.S. slightly. However, once again the contrast was better on the S.S. and optical performance outside of the center of the field of view was better as well.
That amounts to very respectable glass quality for the Hawke. Field of view is a touch narrower than I would have liked, but not excessively so. Tunnel vision is well controlled and never becomes intrusive. Even in low light I could not get the scope to exhibit any especially strong artifacts (although, like with almost any similarly-priced scope there were plenty weakly visible artifacts when faced with bright light sources at night).
Eye relief was right around 4 inches. It was a bit longer at low magnification and a bit shorter at high magnification. The eye relief change between magnifications was large enough for me to notice, but not large enough for me to change shooting position. Since it did not cause me any grief, I did not try to get exact measurements of it. I never got close to getting hit by the scope due to recoil and eye position flexibility was sufficient for my needs.
Depth of field was quite good and, frankly, a little better than I expected. On second thought, any time you have a fairly long scope with a moderately sized objective lens, depth of field should be pretty good.”