leapers Bugbuster Scope

[SL11]

OK, I bought one (the 6x32 model) for my second-hand RWS 48 spring pellet gun. I was interested because (1) it is designed for a "heavy-recoiling spring gun", (2) is is short enough to clear the loading port on the fixed-barrel RWS 48, and (3) it has parallax adjustment from infinity down to 3 yards.

Since Glockmeister has not yet mounted and tested his, here is what I can tell you about them so far:

The scope body is coated, not blued, but has a nice appearance.

Its occular lens adjustment moves the lens, not the lens bell. It has no locking ring and leaves a gap that might become a dirt catcher. But it is easy to adjust and is useful for my purpose, where my wife and I both use the gun. We can easily adjust it to our own eyes each time we use it. A couple of dabs of colored paints on the ring allow us to return the setting to our desired positon without any fuss. It holds its setting well during use.

The ocular lens is smaller than the other scopes I am used to, including the 4x32 RWS scope that came with the rifle. (Both are marked "Made in China" - I guess even the Germans now have no shame!) I need to get closer to the scope to see the full field of view, and need to stay closer to the center axis. But, the view is adequately large for the targets one shoots with a pellet gun.

There is little eye relief. I have 1-5/8" from the scope to my brow. Although they advertise that this scope can withstand the recoil of a 416 Rigby, it should not be mounted on anything that has significant recoil, or you will get a bloody ring on your brow!

The objective lens bell rotates to focus and adjust parallax to the target distance. That works nicely. It is rather easy to judge distance to targets out to about 30 meters by adjusting the parallax to the target (bobbing head to see if cross hairs move on target) and then reading the scale on the lens. With the distance known, it is easy to compensate for trajectory using the dots on the mil-dot reticle. This becomes less feasible by 50 yards (the farthest I shoot an air gun) so I don't yet know how useful this technique would be on a 22 rimfire, where target distances tend to go to 100 yards.

The windage adjustment is rather limited, only 4 rotations of the knob lock-to-lock. My air rifle rings were way off, initally (5" right windage @ 25 feet range to target) and the scope's windage adjustmet would not handle that. (That would be about 5 feet off at 100 yards.) Fortunately, the scope rings are windage adjustable, so I centered the scope reticle and then zeroed with the ring adjustments.

The scope's elevation adjustment is much greater, but I forget if it was 8 turns or only six. It was plenty to deal with some substantial differences in pellet drop at 50 yards for pellets with very different weights.

The windage and elevation knobs are finger turnable with the caps removed. They do not turn as smoothly as my other scopes, but adjustments seem to be repeatable.

I have put about 100 rounds down the barrel getting zero and testing a variety of pellets. So far, the scope seems to hold zero well. I can make a single hole at 50 feet with two types of pellets (but not 4 other types). I still have some issues with the barrel cleanliness, so that inhibits testing the scope at greater distances.

The field of view is not all in focus on a flat target, but the not-quite in-focus areas to the sides are not noticeable when the center is focused and on-target. I have not yet compared this to other scopes that I have. I have a Leupold 6-20X40 VX-II with parallax adjustment that I intend to compare the BugBuster to. But, it requires an adapter lens on the objective bell to adjust to 50 feet. (Not as convenient as the continuous adjustment on the BugBuster, even if it does turn out to be sharper focus.)

The illuminated reticle is useless. It is WAY to bright. There is a turret on the left side of the scope that is an all-in-one on-off, red/green selector, and brightness adjuster. It works fine except that the brightness cannot be turned down far enough to not blind you when it is dusk enough that an illuminated reticle might be useful. Also, there is an illuminated band around the outside of the field of view that is visible in the viewfinder, further blinding you. Do NOT buy this one for an illuminated reticle. (I am still trying to find a 1.5 volt NiCad battery the same size as the 3 volt Lithium battery to see if that will tame this reticle.)

All-in-all, I am happy with this particular scope on my an air-rifle, which seems to be its intended market segment. I think it might also make me happy with a 22 rimfire. But, I would not put it on a center-fire rifle, due to the lack of eye relief. Even if it was a negligible recoiling round like the 17 Fireball, this particular scope would not interest me for shooting at long ranges.

SL1

[Seven©]

Great review, SL11. Thanks. I'm leaning towards a Leapers 6x40 for my daughter's .22.

[GlockMeister]

Yes, great review. I'd point out on mine, even though I've yet to mount it, the illumination is adjustable on this one, I have the 4X32 Bug Buster. I'm wondering if the batteries yours came with might be weak? Because again, I can adjust mine, as you said to so bright it's just about useless, or as I'll say, it'll blind you, to off and anywhere in between. So the illumination on mine adjusts fine. Again, maybe check the batteries in yours.

And there will be NO comparing between a Leupold and a Leapers, wouldn't even waste the time. Obviously the Leupold will out perform the Leapers in every area.

I'm going to try the one I have on an SKS. I've heard the receiver cover scope mounts can play hell with scopes and them holding zero. So I wanted to test the mount with a non-expensive scope before I put a better or more expensive one on it, if I decide to use any scope at all. If it works, I only want it on for target/plinking anyhow. Won't be hunting with the SKS that's for sure, to dam heavy to carry around all day.

Another reason for not getting a more expensive one at this point is I may decide to stick with the irons? So the $54.99 I spent on the scope won't have broke me if I decide to not use it or it gets thrashed. If I decide to not use it on the SKS, for whatever reason/s and it doesn't get thrashed, I can always put it on the Gamo Shadow 1000 I picked up for my son. It came with a generic BSA, or was it a Barska? Either way, not a top of the line there either.

So as I've said, I'll let those know if it worked or not. If it gets thrashed, I'll send it back as they said it will handle it. The guy I bought it from said it will handle it, he's got one on one of his 30-06s, the free sample one they sent him. He says he hasn't had a problem with it so far. He did say if I have any problems, he'll hook me up. So I'm not concerned if this thing gets thrashed on the SKS. I don't believe it will.

So since on the SKS the mount is or will be at the back most section of the receiver, or directly in front of the butt stock, eye relief should be a non issue. I'll be sure to watch for the ring around the eye. lol But, that's why it's always advisable to wear good safety glasses while shooting...

Again, great review SL11.

[gregkilo]

I tried the Tapco "Bantam" on the sks and it lasted +/- 50 rounds. It was mounted on a utg pic/weaver cover mount. noticed it start shooting low and tried to rezero but didnt have enough elevation. Couldnt even "bubba" it and make it work. It was advertised as a .22 scope but it was cheap and it gave me an excuse to burn powder

[GlockMeister]

Thanks for the info/input Greg. This new 5th Generation True Strength series/models of Leapers scopes have supposedly been real world tested on a .416 Rigby. We shall see, or I will as soon as I get some rings. which the guy is suppose to be sending me, the weather warms up, and I can find a decent rifle range near me. Hate to have to drive 2 or 3 hours every time. Especially with the way gas prices are heading and will be at by spring then summer.

Seems most of the ones near me have a rule stating no human silhouettes or have some other dumb rule/s. I don't mind following rules, but if I also want to practice with a handgun, for self defense, shooting at paper human silhouettes isn't the best, but it's still better then shooting paper bulls eyes targets or animal targets.