BSA Sweet .22


February 4, 2006, 12:48 AM
Midway has them listed as coming soon. There are supposed to be different turrets to compensate for 36, 38 and 40 grain bullets. Seems ideal for my TC Classic since Federal makes loads in all 3 weights. Has anyone used one of these, or one of the Sweet .17s? I like the idea but am not sure how well it will work. I'm not down on BSA either, my 2X scope on my MN has held its zero well and seems to have been worth the money.


If you enjoyed reading about "BSA Sweet .22" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 4, 2006, 01:53 AM
I know a lot of fellow Hummer shooters that have used the Sweet 17. I have heard a lot of good things, and some bad as well. But, there are lots of folk who swear by them. Never used one myself tho.

February 4, 2006, 02:04 AM
What bad things have you heard? And why do shooters swear by them?

February 4, 2006, 03:06 AM
The bad things I have heard are your standard BSA complaints. Or any less-than-Leupold complaints. Just general gripes about "Well, mind wouldn't hold zero, bla, blah, blah.." The people that swear by them say the drop turret is accurate and very consistant in adjusting for range. Also, I hear they are good optics since they are specifically designed for the .17, or .22 in your case.

February 4, 2006, 10:29 AM
Thanks again. I own one BSA that I am happy with so I figured it was worth a shot on this.

February 4, 2006, 11:36 AM
The bullet drop compensator is without question dead on. Sight at 100. Move to 300, change the turret and keep on chucking! Of course wind will come into play and I can attest that the BSA quality may be less than desired. I think a Redfield or Tasco Pro level scopes are much better for little more. But you'll never get the coolness of the BDC reticle.

Keep in mind that BSA does have their lifetime warranty. Whether or not they support it well though, I've yet to find out. I have a Predator 8-36x50mm with a reticle that is crooked in the scope and definitely does not hold zero. I guess I'll be testing out the warranty when I get around to it.

February 4, 2006, 11:50 AM
I think I'm going to give it a shot soon. I'm not knocking those who complain about problems with lower priced optics but I always wonder how many satisfied buyers there are compared to the number of people complaining on the internet. One of the department heads at my unit bought Barska binoculars and I figured they would be crap. Turns out they are light, have clear optics and a good wide FOV and have held up fine so far. That was an eye opener for me.

February 4, 2006, 12:43 PM
One of my buds has a .17 HMR with a BSA Sweet 17 that I've shot. The BDC is very accurate once calibrated. Even more so when using a laser range finder.
I would imagine that the same thought and effort would go into producing the .22 version.

February 4, 2006, 10:47 PM
I've had one BSA scope, a 4x rimfire model. I gave it to someone who wanted to play with it, because I thought it was a POS. Bought it when I was going out somewhere and needed a scope, and only had a few minutes to pick one up and throw it on a rifle.

It never held zero for either of us.

Simmons makes some pretty nice .22 scopes for cheap. I got a 22 Mag Compact and it's a perfect complement to my little recessed synthetic stock 10/22, for the same price as the POS from the BSA.

They won't be getting my business again. Mediocre optics are one thing; a scope that won't hold zero on a .22 is another.

And the Simmons has a bright, sharp image, too. Not quite like what I've got on my Weatherby, but it was a fraction of the cost and a lot smaller, too. And it's surprisingly close.

If you enjoyed reading about "BSA Sweet .22" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!