I have used a cheapo Bushnell that came off of a Savage packge deal .22. It's honestly, the worst scope that I've ever used. I'd not recommend it at all. I'm not sure what model it is. I've always seen guys at the range beat on their scope after making adjustments, but I've always thought they were being foolish as I'm not going to beat on my scopes. When I've asked people about it, their reasoning was that it's to settle the crosshairs. I've never had to do this, and didn't think I ever would, as the crosshairs have always adjusted right where I told them to. Well, I couldn't figure out what was going on. You would make adjustments, and it wouldn't adjust. Then all of a sudden a few shots later, it would move the poi. I thought the scope was bad. That's when I noticed that it wasn't adjusting when you turned the dials, but instead, was taking several shots for it to settle in the crosshairs. After I found this, we tried beating on it and bumping the butt stock to simulate the recoil. After making adjustments and doing this, it worked fine. That's the first problem with this scope.
The second problem was, we were shooting it at 50 yards and each clicked seemed to move it close to 3/4". Trying to sight it in, it just wasn't easy. The bullseye was about the size of a pencil eraser, and we could not get it to hit it. It either hit to the right or the left. It would hit to the left and we would try one click right and then it would be hitting to the right. The rifle was very accurate and shot groups that were basically one hole, but this scope just wouldn't adjust any closer than that. At 50 yards each click should be 1/8" as it's marked as 1/4" at 100 yards. However, it was more like 3/4".
Not to mention the turrets felt sloppy.
Now onto the glass. It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't good either. In low light, it was pretty darn bad. In daylight, it was clear enough imo that it would be fine for a .22, however, it wasn't impressive either and not the clearest thing I've seen.
Another thing I noticed which doesn't matter, but it just adds to the crappiness of this scope was that the magnification ring was pretty hard to turn around the 3-4 power, but around the 6-9 power it felt really really loose and just was super easy to move. The whole thing just felt cheap, and acted cheap too.
I'm glad I got to see this this piece of crap in action so that I never buy one. Glad I didn't waste the $30-40 on one of these things and I feel sorry for the guys that have to use them.
Now I don't know if this is the exact same model you were looking at or not as I'm not sure what model this was.
I personally use a Simmons Deerfield on my .22 and I love it. However, it's several years old so I'm not sure who owned Simmons at the time it was made. Simmons is now owned by Bushnell, so I don't know that it will be anywhere near the same now. This one has glass that's very surprising for the price, as well as adjusting how it should. I haven't done a box test to see if it's repeatable or not, but it adjusts where I tell it to, and the adjustments seem to be pretty close. It's stays zeroed, and the adjustments actually adjust the crosshairs, none of this waiting to settle in crap. It's not the best scope, but it's surprisingly decent.
I will say though that I also had a Simmons 8 Point that was only about 2 years old, and it was halfway decent. It had decent glass in it, and it did work. It was on a centerfire rifle not a .22. It held zero well, but it had a similar problem to the Bushnell I tried. It was shooting about 1" right at 100 yards. I moved it over 2 clicks just to see where it hit. To my surprise, it hit about 1" left now. I moved it back one click and it hit dead center. I just left it there as it was hitting dead center. However, it seemed like each click was moving it around 1" instead of the 1/4" that it was supposed to. This was a halfway decent scope, way better than the above Bushnell, but it still wasn't great.
The other two cheap scopes I've tried were a Tasco Bucksight and it also had surprising glass for a a $30 scope. It was pretty impressive, the adjustments may not have been perfect, but it was close to moving 1/4" at 100 yards. May have moved more like 1/2" at times, but it was really hard to tell. It held zero fine, and just seemed pretty decent for a $30 scope. I had no complaints really. However, Tasco is also owned by Bushnell, so who knows what you will get now as this scope was several years old also.
The other cheap scope I've tried is a CenterPoint 4-16. Surprisingly this thing tracked well, and was repeatable. It moved exactly where I told it to, and it would return to zero every time. It seemed like a decent scope. The downfall to this is the glass was horrible. On the low powers, it was decent, but on anything 12x or above the glass looked milky and washed out. Even in broad daylight it was hard to see some things on the 16x power if it was more than 75 yards away. This seemed like a decent scope too if you don't plan to use it on the high powers all the time.
Those are my experiences with the cheap scopes I've tried. I've found that cheap scopes in my experience haven't been as bad as people online often make them out to be. However, that Bushnell was a real piece of crap. Everything I've read about cheap scopes other than failing to hold zero, that thing showed signs of. The only thing it did do is hold zero. I'd not at all recommend one, and if I was given one, I'd sell it or give it away. It was that bad. The Simmons, have been pretty good. The first one has been great. The second one was decent, but I did end up selling it. The Tasco was also pretty decent.
Now in higher priced scopes, I've noticed several advantages to most of the cheapies, but the cheap glass still has been decent for the most part. Several friends use cheap Simmons and a couple use Tasco's and while a few have had issues the majority of them have worked fine and most of those guys seen no reason to use anything else.
