Could this $65 scope be a real sleeper?

I have a 4-16x40 Centerpoint on a .30-06 I bought from my brother. The scope came on the gun, and I don't have a replacement for it yet........so it's still on the rifle.

Initial impression was that they were heavy and ugly. That never changed and never will.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

Aside from the weight and size of the beast, he biggest gripe I have about mine is that when I turn up the magnification past about 7X, you get nothing but blurs in the scope. A big, heavy scope with lots of magnification I can deal with, but a big heavy scope that is stuck on 6X all the time is worthless.

As soon as I get the funds rounded up, it will get replaced by a 4-12X40 Redfield Revolution, or another Leupold Rifleman.
 
I built up my Savage .22 to replicate my .308's and I used one of the Wally World CenterPoints mainly so that I could stick with the mil dot reticle. I have been nothing but impressed with it FOR WHAT IT IS and FOR MY PURPOSE. I wouldn't put one on my .308's or any other serious use gun, but for a 'trainer' .22 it is very suitable and well worth the price paid.
 
I had one on a Marlin 795 .22 and it worked great. Seems like it does everything that a sub 100.00 scope should plus.
 
I've seen a lot of positive reviews of that scope from people who had them on everything from .22's to 30.06's and above. Being cheap doesn't always mean being bad. I have a Simmons scope that I paid just over $100 for that is an excellent scope. It does a great job with light gathering, it doesn't have any glaring distortion issues, and the AO adjustment works very well. I have it on my Savage 12 LRPV and it has never once lost zero. I had it on a 30.06 before that and it never lost zero there either. I shoot a quarter of a mile at the gun range with the LRPV and I can shoot 2" groups at that distance with it.
 
Thing is, a lot of guys shoot the same distance, at the same range, most- or all- of the time.

So, they zero at say, 100 yards, and never adjust the elevation or even the windage...

As long as the scope holds zero, there's never an issue...and the scope will "function" perfectly. It doesn't matter how clear the glass is, or how accurate the clicks are- they're never used.

Now, if you're a long range hunter, or target shooter, that's constantly dialing up twenty mils of elevation, and compensating for windage , that's when the precision and repeat-ability of better scopes becomes evident.

If that .25 MOA click is really .20, or is not exactly the same each time, any minor deviations at 100 yards quickly become evident when you multiply by ten when shooting at 1,000.
 
For 90% of hunting it would probably be OK, but it's the other 10% of the time that most game is taken.

I'm going to refrain from asking if Casey Stengel was related. :D
 
Thing is, a lot of guys shoot the same distance, at the same range, most- or all- of the time.

So, they zero at say, 100 yards, and never adjust the elevation or even the windage...

As long as the scope holds zero, there's never an issue...and the scope will "function" perfectly. It doesn't matter how clear the glass is, or how accurate the clicks are- they're never used.

Now, if you're a long range hunter, or target shooter, that's constantly dialing up twenty mils of elevation, and compensating for windage , that's when the precision and repeat-ability of better scopes becomes evident.

If that .25 MOA click is really .20, or is not exactly the same each time, any minor deviations at 100 yards quickly become evident when you multiply by ten when shooting at 1,000.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not only the repeatability but just durability as well. My last match I must have cranked the turrets ,quickly, back and forth atleast 40-50 times that day; including all the way down and all the way to the top. I don't know how confident I would be doing that to my BSA.

By the way, you have a pm ;)
 
Hey Crankylove, my son just put a 4x12x40 Redfield Revolution on his 3006, and we put fourty rnd through it last saturday. It's a nice scope for the money. But these Bubble packed scopes of Wally world just seem to me like a wasted bunch of fuel, buy it and take it home, mount it and take it to the range, (where it goes foggy after fifth round), take it back to house and dismount the scope, find the receit, ( which can suck) drive all the way back to wally-world and tell the service desk lady why you want to return it, (which she doesn't have a dang clue "what your telling her", then get your doe back or pick up a new one........:o


Fellas my only conclusion would be to study all the reviews you can before purchase.... :rolleyes: BECAUSE IN THE LONG RUN,,, HOW MUCH PATIENTS DO WE WANT TO BE LEFT WITH?;)
 
There's the old saying "You don't always get what you pay for, but you always pay for what you get"
Click to expand...

Sorry friend but that old saying is pretty much worthless in today's world. I work with video for a living. I've bought brand name lenses for $2. They were (and are - I still have one) excellent quality and every bit as good as lenses that cost 100 times as much. So much for good glass being expensive.

Also it takes a lot more than $65 to get a scope with repeatable adjustments. My $400 Weaver T-36 won't do it either so I'm not sure how much you have to pay to get one that will work as it should. Of all the scopes I have none of them work that well and I have a bunch of them most of which are thought of as good scopes. Kentucky windage is a much more reliable method of making adjustments IMO.
 
Hooligan.....mine isn't so much foggy, its more that after the magnification goes up to about 6X or higher, the outer edges of the scope go blurry, and you are left with about 1/4" in the center that you can actually see through. It does this with every shooter that has fired it, with eye relief adjusted from one end to the other........kind of annoying......and there is no reciept, so untill I get the Redfield I have been looking at, I am stuck with it.

I don't mess with changing clicks on my scopes once they are sighted in, they get a S.W.A.G. for windage and elevation instead, and it usually works pretty well. So, as far as durability, and repeatability, I couldn't really say how it is holding up.

Mine is mounted on a Browning 1885..........and that scope is sooooooo out of place on that rifle. If you can get past the huge size and weight of the scope, and manage to find your target within the teeny un-blurry spot in the scope, it is a very accurate combo........just ugly......and hard to shoot well.

I was at Wally World last night, and saw the same scope I have selling for $70. If mine worked without the blurriness, I would say $70 is a decent price for that scope........but since mine doesnt work well......I would rather another $120 and get another Rifleman.
 
I have one and would rate it as a decent scope. Considering how little it costs per feature I would say its a great valued scope.

I like it, at the moment its mounted ona savage model 10FP .308 until I can get a better one. But To compare it to a Nikon/Leupold etc, is unfair and useless, as there is no comparrison. I wont even pretend that it can hold its own to the bigger brands. The glass starts to get fringing after about 10x magnification, and it doesnt gather light as effectively as others. The lighted reticles work, but it also lights up an outer ring around them.

What I will say it does is hold zero, mines been kicking around all hunting season, and because I worry because its a cheap scope, I make sure its zeroed before each outting, and it hasnt failed to hold a 200 yard zero yet.

Also, it seems to be repeatable fairly well, I have ran it through some paces at ranges from 100-700 yards, cranking turrets, and it does seem to return to zero when I want it to...does that mean it would hold up to this repeatedly..nope, just means it did when I tested it.

It is, in my opinion, aesthetically pleasing.

All in all it has done what I needed it to do, which is, after blowing my spending money on a rifle, be an interim scope that will perform its job reasonably until I can afford better optics. For 70 bucks, that seems like a steal to me. And when I do get a better scope in a few monthsI have no doubt that the centerpoint will serve another purpose, a spare just in case scope.

I think its all in what is it intended for...An interim scope...a scope to keep in your pack just in case your on a week long elk hunt and your rifle goes with you down a rockslide...whatever..I dont think its a competition grade optic, nor is it rugged enough to stand field use for long..One nevere gets More than what they paid for, but in my experience, Sometimes as long as you know what your paying for, youre never disapointed.

Regards
Duncan
 
I've had a few Centerpoints. A 3-9x40 came on a Remington (Crosman really) NPSS break barrel gas piston pellet gun. This is a decent scope for the money. It's held a zero pretty well.

I just picked up the 4-16x40 and it's similar. It seems to hold a zero well. But you might as well call it a 4-9 or 10 because the higher magnification settings are pretty milky/washed out looking. I guess if you don't mind a blurred image 16 would work for you but clarity or a good sight picture is NOT what I'd call it. But if you expect to only use up to say 9 power, it's not bad for the money. But the 3-9 is probably a better use of that same money since that's about what you get with the 4-16 power anyways. I'd bet their 4x fixed is an ok scope for the money as well.

That's what I've found using this scope. I'd buy another centerpoint. These seem to be a notch above the NCStars in the accuracy dept if you're going cheap. The picture on the NCStar may actually be a little better on higher power settings but then again I haven't compared back to back at the same time although I've owned both, both are clear optics for the buck. I sold the NCStar pretty quickly after getting baseball sized groups at 20 yards (vs nickel to dimed sized with the Centerpoint). I cannot recommend NC Star's 3-9x40. It's by far the worst scope (in my experience and with my shooting) that I've ever shot with. The Centerpoint shoots pretty good and I'd go so far to say great for the money.

Edit: Gotta give this scope a little more credit. I just took it out again and it's not bad up to about 12 or 14 power even 16 if the adjustable objective is perfectly focused is pretty useable. So... overall this is a pretty good value. Just got done shooting quite a few one holes from a rest at 20 yards with a 22. I'd call the ones that weren't right in there bad ammo or fliers (or maybe trigger pull). This really is a pretty decent scope for the money. I got it as a refurb for $40 plus shipping and really can't beat that.
 
Last edited:
I have the Center-point 4-16x40 with lighted reticle and adjustable parallax. I had it on my 6mm remington for awhile before upgrading to a Burris. The center-point now resides on my 10/22 and has done an adequate job on both rifles but I believe it is better suited to the 10/22. I wanted an adjustable parallax on my 10/22 and the center point is one of the cheapset scopes out there with that feature. It is however very large and heavy, as others have said, and a little blurry at high magnification at closer range. But its a great scope to put on a rimfire that you dont want to sink a bunch of money into.

I'll also add that I have the 3-9x40 Bushnell Banner that Wal-Mart sells right beside the center-point. The Bushnell is a little brighter and clearer, and smaller and lighter, than the center-point. If you don't have to have adjustable parallax or 16x magnification I recommend the Bushnell. It also has a better illuminated reticle IMO than the center-point. The center section of the crosshairs is all that lights up on the Bushnell, and it has very thin lines, whereas the entire crosshairs light up thick and bold on the center-point, making what your looking at look even darker in contrast.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top