Scope for Cricket standard
I just received my .22 cricket bulldog. I have a hawk sidewinder 30 8x32x56 I put on it but it’s really big on the gun, and heavy also. What is everyone using on their crickets and edguns ?
[/img]
All Replies
Hawke Sidewinder 30 Tactical SF 6.5-20×42 here too.
I love this scope. I have 3 of them on my Edguns and now Cricket.
Here is it.
I have had better luck with the ST Hawkes than Bushnell Elites. When my Bushnell Elite 6-24 started losing zero, I went through several months back and forth with Bushnell Customer Service in the US before I finally got a replacement. The first time they sent it back it had not been touched. Hawke replaced a Sidewinder Tactical that I damaged by over adjusting inside of a week. The etched glass reticles are really nice on the Hawke Tacticals and Panoramas. They are heavy, though, just like a Nightforce or US Optics and the optics are a shade poorer than the Bushnells Elites (around the edges), NF or US O but the bang for the buck is still very good for a mid priced scope. I own six older Leupolds on high powered rifles and my main local scope supplier tells me his return rate has skyrocketed on Leupold the last five years. He claims I would be better servied by getting a used one than a new one more than five years old if I were to buy one today.
Ior optics use Shott glas, shott glas is used by zeiss in their top line scopes to. Ior is build like a tank, for heavy recoiling rifles upt to .50 bmg. The reticle mp8 or the variations of it is very fine for long range target acquisition.
We shall find out………. 😉
I find it interesting to look through the lists from the Dutch 100 m indoor competitions. Those where our friends Kazzz and Veerkracht participate. There are not too many lists around specifying scopes and/or other equipment used.
While the IOR seems to be well represented, – there is no sign of the other top brands………
I wonder why……….
That said, – one of the more serious advantages of the Cricket is weight. And if weight is important to you, I can highly recommend the Leupold EFR 3-9×33:
I have loads of those. The fabulous field of view is unmatched by most and the weight is only 326 grs (11,50 oz). 3-9 zoom is more than enough for mid range hunting. Not ideal for longrange paper clipping though……..
I have also several of the Bushnell Elite 6-24×50 and 6x24x40. The latter is being mounted on the Cricket in the below image:
The weight is 496 grs (17.5 oz) and with some very light mounts, – you don’t really feel the weight that much. And it is a brilliant multipurpose scope. I know a lot of people who would prefer the 6-24×40 over the 6-24×50 because of weight. The 6-24×50 weighs 717 grs (25,3 oz) which is nearly twice as much as the Leupy mentoned higher up. I find the 6-24×50 a bit on the heavy side for the Cricket, but love her on my R3s……
I find the Bushnell ERS 4.5-30×50 to be brilliant scopes too. That extra zoom capacity is nice to have for long range shooting. Works well too, especially under good lightning conditions. I have them on my DS AirRangers and friends. The weight is acceptable 683 grs (24.1 oz) but she is slightly more expensive than the 6-24×50.
The March 3-24×42 that I am waiting for weighs a little less, 640 grs to be exact. I find that impressive in a 8x zoom scope, – however so is the price………. 😉
But then again, – “the difference between men and boys is…????” 😉
Cheers
Trygve 😀
All are great scopes. I particularly like the Bushnell because of the tremendous value and quality. My favorite is the 4.5-30×50 which is exceptional especially when you want to reach out and touch something. I have other scopes and always find myself coming back to Bushnell.
Let us know how you like the March. It is tempting but when the Bushy work so well for me, it’s hard to justify the additional expense and less magnification.
Dear Hoot,
I’ve been in Oslo for some three weeks already, – but most of my time has disappeared into the “black hole” left behind by a close friend who decided to leave this planet…… 😥
FX retailers in Sweden expect prices in the R3/Cricket range. Release date not yet known…….. 😉
If I ever manage to lay my hands on one, – I’ll make another review/comparison if so desired……
Cheers
Trygve 😀
(going back to Lanzarote on Monday for another 8 weeks…… )
Ty….good to hear from you!
How goes the renovations? Have you returned home, or close to that date?
While you are “abroad” can you obtain any info on the FX Bulldog? Price is a big question, release date another. We thought perhaps you may have friends in low places who know such trivia that we lust after!
Regards, my friend, and hopes all goes well for you in uncertain times…
H 😯 😯 t
We shall find out………. 😉
I find it interesting to look through the lists from the Dutch 100 m indoor competitions. Those where our friends Kazzz and Veerkracht participate. There are not too many lists around specifying scopes and/or other equipment used.
While the IOR seems to be well represented, – there is no sign of the other top brands………
I wonder why……….
That said, – one of the more serious advantages of the Cricket is weight. And if weight is important to you, I can highly recommend the Leupold EFR 3-9×33:
I have loads of those. The fabulous field of view is unmatched by most and the weight is only 326 grs (11,50 oz). 3-9 zoom is more than enough for mid range hunting. Not ideal for longrange paper clipping though……..
I have also several of the Bushnell Elite 6-24×50 and 6x24x40. The latter is being mounted on the Cricket in the below image:
The weight is 496 grs (17.5 oz) and with some very light mounts, – you don’t really feel the weight that much. And it is a brilliant multipurpose scope. I know a lot of people who would prefer the 6-24×40 over the 6-24×50 because of weight. The 6-24×50 weighs 717 grs (25,3 oz) which is nearly twice as much as the Leupy mentoned higher up. I find the 6-24×50 a bit on the heavy side for the Cricket, but love her on my R3s……
I find the Bushnell ERS 4.5-30×50 to be brilliant scopes too. That extra zoom capacity is nice to have for long range shooting. Works well too, especially under good lightning conditions. I have them on my DS AirRangers and friends. The weight is acceptable 683 grs (24.1 oz) but she is slightly more expensive than the 6-24×50.
The March 3-24×42 that I am waiting for weighs a little less, 640 grs to be exact. I find that impressive in a 8x zoom scope, – however so is the price………. 😉
But then again, – “the difference between men and boys is…????” 😉
Cheers
Trygve 😀
A March scope would work well! 🙄
What? I can’t hear you, too much shit in my ears… 🙄
Even with my head up my ass i’ll still out shoot you. Guess that makes it an advantage. 😉
Whoops…..
You weren’t supposed to see this!
H 😀 😀 t
What? I can’t hear you, too much shit in my ears… 🙄
Even with my head up my ass i’ll still out shoot you. Guess that makes it an advantage. 😉
😆 Thanks Hoot. My local gun store is pretty good about exchanges if need be. I’ll try the mediums first.
Surprisingly, the shape of your face has a lot to do with ring height.
Since there is no magazine to get above, you can use whatever height is comfortable for you.
I used mediums on the two I owned. If you have a long thin face, you may need high rings to line up correctly. If your face is round, you may need low rings. An oval face may do well with medium rings. If you are like synopsys, with your head up your ass, then no ring height will be comfortable!
A lot of individuals don’t think of this, but everyone’s cheek bone is located at different levels on their face. This affects where your cheek weld takes place and determines how high or low your line of sight is above the breech. So one size won’t fit all.
There is no formula that I’m aware of, so it’s a bit of trial and error.
H 😯 😯 t
I just ordered up a standard .22 walnut Cricket from TGAG and plan on putting one of my Hawke Side Tact 6.5-20 1/2 md scopes on it. What rings are you using? I can see one pict has UTG mediums see-thru but would the lows do? I see someone else talking highs for the cheek weld.
Thanks!
I have the perfect replacement, a UTG 3 X 12 – 44 with side focus. Barely 12″ long and clear as a bell.
We can trade even. Just drop me your address.
Please…don’t bother to thank me.
Kindest regards,
Uncle H 😯 😯 t
You’re always doing these things; never a selfish moment. You’re a great American and an ever greater Humanitarian & Philantropist! Glad to know you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
I own a Nightforce NSF on a long range powder burner and I always like folks to look through one of my Hawke Sidewinder Tacticals and the NSF next to each other and compare them – even in low light. The NF is 4x more costly for very little obvious difference. Although I have never tested it the Hawke STs are supposed to handle significant recoil as well. Some folks complain about eye relief sensitivity in ST Hawke but my NF is very similar at high magnification. I bought the NF a few years ago but have definitely had a “why did I buy this?” moment. My only complaint about Hawke are the less expensive models that really give Hawkes a bad name. I wish they would stop the Airmax, Varmint, etc that really don’t measure up to the etched glass models. I owned a Varmint and it was a poor attempt at a complex reticle with thick wires.