Old Bushnell Scope Thoughts?

[JayFramer]

Guys a few years ago dad gave me the Bushnell Sportview off his 10/22. Said it’s been on there since the early 80s when he bought the gun. Well I’ve had it in storage for years but recently got a Henry’s .22 caliber rimfire repeating rifle and decided to mount the scope to it just to shoot groups at the range:

Guys dad told me the scope wasn’t worth much. It says “Bushnell Sportview” on the side, then 3-9x32 and “T-1393” on it. Guys any info at all on these old Bushy scopes? Seems to work fine and clear enough, in super great shape. Is this vintage optic alright for a .22 gun? It also has the original see-through rings I know are considered silly today so if the optic is okay I’ll probably switch them for standard rings of some kind.

Thoughts?

-Jay

 

[Texas Star]

I wrote about binoculars and scopes for nearly a generation and respect the Bushnell line. You got/get pretty good quality for money.

But they were like Sear's, with Good, Better, and Best quality ranges. You have the lower range, but if it hasn't fogged internally like many used 'scopes, it'll probably serve your purpose.

I once asked a man at a defense contractor to test my Bushnell monocular, a 10X30. The firm built and repaired military optics and had very sophisticated test gear.

He was surprised at how good it was. Said if you were looking at a girl at 100 yards, you might not be able to see her XXXs (or eyes) clearly, but you'd come close. That part of her anatomy typically measures maybe an inch across or less.

Bushnell isn't Zeiss or Leica, but they're darned good for the money, usually as good as needed for non enthusiasts. They compare well with the equivalent Weaver or Nikon rimfire scopes in that value area. I might pay $25 for your scope, if in good shape. This is not an offer. I don't buy cheap optics. But someone will prob. pay that fee.

I talked with the man who designed their Elite binoculars, and he set out to beat Leica performance of the day. I think he did, although Leica has long since improved on their 1980's Trinovid quality. My later Leica 8X32 is on par with my Zeiss, as good as it gets.

 

[Texas Star]

BTW, Bushnell bought Bausch & Lomb long ago, and I think improved the quality. I have a B&L (Bushnell made) 7X35mm Porro binocular.

Soon after WW II, the original B&L firm advertised that you could see an apple on a tree at a range of a mile with that glass!

It does require a clear day and a steady rest, but I was able to do that with my Bushnell-made B&L 7X35. And they had improved precision, I think, and certainly used enhanced optical coatings.

That is the later equivalent to the real B&L Zephyr that Jack O' Connor extolled in his writing, only better, and I still enjoy using that instrument. Of course, it's a far cry from Bushnell's economy rimfire scopes...

 

[LoboGunLeather]

About 1977 I wanted a scope for my hunting rifle. Bucks were tight at the time, so I purchased a Bushnell Banner 1.75-4.5 with Bullet Drop Compensator feature for a very reasonable price. Set it up in Ruger factory rings on my Ruger #1 Light Sporter .30-06. It has been there ever since with no problems and decades of freezers filled with elk and deer. At times the rifle has sat in the gun safe for a couple of years, then out to the range and no problems with zero, etc. The BDC feature works quite well, and I have adapted it for use with several different loads from full-power hunting ammo to much-reduced cast bullet loads for short range and small game.

Recently wanted a scope for use on my new CZ 455 American .22LR rifle. Caught a deal on-line for a close-out/discontinued Tasco World Class 3-9X40, ridiculously low price with free shipping. Overall quality looks very good, but it will have to wait for my cataract surgeries next month for range trials. I expect it will do very well.

I have owned and used Weaver, Unertl, Zeiss, Redfield, Burris, Leupold and others. Some have been better for one purpose or another, but I don't recall any of them being really bad. Owned an old Weaver K3 years ago, post and crosshair reticle that I liked, then the scope went cloudy (lost its seals), but it still shoots just as good as ever.

Use it and enjoy it!

 

[Skeet 028]

I sold and used Bushnell scopes for years I had a 1 3/4-4 1/2 on a 12 ga slug gun for quite a few years. Slugs are notorious for recoil and that ol scope just kept taking it. I used the Banner line on quite a few light recoiling rifles. Especially 22s. Use it. Enjoy it

 

[Ole Joe Clark]

I have a cheap Bushnell Trophy 3 X 9 scope on a 10/22 and the crosshairs are too "thick". I also have an old Weaver 4x that I must have owned for 40 years, (probably bought 2nd hand), that is a much better scope. I mounted it on my old Marlin model 80 DL .22, the fine crosshairs allow me to out shoot my wife on a good day.
You get what you pay for.

Have a blessed day,

Leon

 

[SC_Mike]

I don't think see thru rings are silly at all. I wanted to find some for my 17 HMR but couldn't. The set up looks good on the lever gun.

I've always heard good things about Bushnell scopes and binos. I say shoot it and see.

 

[Papa32129]

Bushnell sport view 3x9x40

I have that setup on my 1022.

Holds zero for many years. 20 or so
Glass is clear too


Papa



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jellybean]

As everyone above said, the scopes are good.

There is nothing wrong with the rings, regardless of what you may have heard. If you replace them you will need to find some that will give you clearance between the scope and rear sight and looking at your photo they will need to be fairly high. I've used old 'see thru' rings just to get the added height with no intention of using the sights, I'd leave them on there.

 

[chief38]

Bushnell scopes would not be a first choice for serious work but for informal plinking, an ocassional Squirrel or for 50 - 100 ft. target practice it should work just fine. I have a Bushnell scope mounted on a very inexpensive Bolt Gun and while not a high quality scope (cost me under $40 when I bought it) it does work OK as long as the lighting is good.

 

[fishcreekrim]

Scopes are what they are, shoot groups see if it holds a zero over time. Personally I wouldn’t let see thru mounts near a gun, I often shoot skunks, snakes etc at a few yards with low power(4x) scopes. JMHO/YMMV

 

[spricks]

I have one exactly like yours on a slug gun and it has performed like a expensive scope....I've bagged a lot of whitetails, as well as a black bear with the set-up.....I think you will be happy with it...and that's all that matters!

spricks

 

[Old 44 Guy]

I had a Bushnell just like yours on my Win. Model 88 for years. Bought it when money was tight, 27 bucks at a gun show. Used it for many years, took bucks & 2 Elk. Now it's on my sons 308 & still preforms well.