Print Page | Close Window

CenterPoint scope review.

Printed From: OpticsTalk by SWFA, Inc.
Category: Optic Reviews and Tests
Forum Name: Member's Tests and Reviews
Forum Description: Real world reviews and comparisons
Printed Date: July/03/2020 at 10:36
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.01 -

Topic: CenterPoint scope review.
Posted By: hometheaterman
Subject: CenterPoint scope review.
Date Posted: August/31/2010 at 22:28
So I’m writing a review of the CenterPoint 4-16x40mm Adventure Class scope. I’ve read enough about these recently that it’s really gotten me interested. Most all of the reviews I’ve read have been positive with only a couple negative reviews. However, like most of you I’m wondering how the heck they can pack all those features in a scope, and sell it for $70 and it still be decent? I decided to finally go ahead and purchase one. I figured, hey, what the heck Walmart offers a return period, so if it sucks, I can take it back.

          Here is the link to the scope. As you can see most reviews are positive. -

          This scope comes with a set of rings, which I didn't use so can't comment on them, and it comes with a set of flip up scope caps, which seem decent however, they don't seem as nice as the Butler Creek flip ups. One other thing to mention is if using the scope covers, they move when you move the focus or the adjustable objective, so you either have to take them off, adjust it, then put them back on, or just deal with them not being straight after adjusting it.  

          First impressions are that the glass in this rifle is kind of disappointing to me. Many of you know how bad I think the lower end Leupold VX-I line is, but the glass in this thing makes the VX-I look pretty decent. It’s noticeably worse than my 2 Simmons scopes I’ve owned, but it’s still usable. It’s actually not at all bad on the 4-10 power. However, after that it starts to head downhill. Once you hit 14 power and up, it heads downhill very very quickly. 16x in broad daylight just looked washed out and milky. Everything just had a white haze to it, and it wasn’t very clear at all even when focused. I mean don’t get me wrong, it was clear enough to see the 2” targets at 100 yards that I was shooting at, but that’s about it and this was in broad daylight. 10-14x was better, but still not exceptional. It was definitely very usable, but still almost looked washed out a little and the colors weren’t vibrant. At 10x and below, the scope was actually pretty decent. I don’t have any complaints there, except in low light it’s definitely not a great performer. Compared to my Simmons scope I compared it to, it is slightly worse. However, compared to my Burris Fullfield II scope there is a huge difference in low light clarity. In my dimly lit yard, I looking into the edges of the woods, I could see some stuff, but in the brush I found it hard to make out anything, where I could with my naked eye. With the Burris, you can see things in detail that you can’t see with your eye. This scope also includes an illuminated reticle, which was cool, but I don’t see the point as it’s not like you could do much hunting with this thing at night anyway.

          All in all, if I had to rate this, I’d give this glass a 3.5/10.

          Now I did mount this on a .22 rifle, so I can’t comment how it would do on center fire rifles with more recoil. Anyway, I mounted it on my .22 rifle and quickly zeroed it at 50 yards. I just saw where it hit, and then I adjusted the scope so that it should hit the bulls eye. I had it zeroed within a couple of shots. I didn’t bore sight it. To my surprise it actually moved exactly where I told it. This to me was a huge surprise, as most cheap scopes I’ve used don’t exactly track well. They often aren’t precise on the adjustments, but once you get them set stay set. This scope was not at all like that as it seemed to move 1/8” at 50 yards and ¼” at 100 yards consistently just like it said. The clicks were positive, and had a good feel to them. This scope really just had a solid feel to it.

          The adjustable objective is really nice to have on a .22 and seemed to do a pretty good job.

          Once zeroed at 50 yards, I shot a few groups. I was getting groups around 1” which I expected with this rifle. Some were smaller, but the biggest ones were around 1”. Keep in mind this was with cheap bulk pack ammo. You can loosen the knobs and turn them so that when the scope is zeroed at whatever distance you choose they both are on 0. I did this then moved out to 100 yards. I shot to see what adjustments I needed to make. To my surprise once again, each and every time I adjust this thing it moved exactly where I adjusted it. Just a couple shots and I was sighted in for 100 yards. I took note of where the knobs were according to the markings on the knobs. I shot a few groups, and then decided to see how the scope tracked here. I moved it 6” high and shot a group. Sure enough it hit right where I expected. I then moved it back down the same number of clicks to where it was before and sure enough it was back hitting the bulls eye. I tried moving the adjustment knobs by small amounts and then returning it to zero at 100 yards, and I tried in large amounts, but it always returned exactly to zero. I shot a few more 100-yard groups, and then turned the knobs back to my 50 yard zero. First shot nailed the bulls eye just like it had previously when I had it sighted in for 50 yards. This just flat out shocked me. As said most cheap scopes I’ve seen have not tracked well, nor been repeatable, however, this thing tracks perfectly as far as I can tell, and has always been repeatable and returned to zero. This also has locking rings so that once the knobs are set you can turn the locking rings so that you can’t move the adjustment knobs until you once again loosen the locking rings. This is nice to keep the turrets from getting accidentally moved since there are no turret covers. Another thing to point out is that the POI stayed the same even on different magnifications. I tried different magnifications and there was no poi change like on some of the cheap scopes.

          As far as the adjustments go I’d have to give this scope a 10/10.
Next, I tried out the illuminated reticle. One thing to point out about this reticle is that this is not the traditional mil dots. Normally, mil dot reticles have 4 dots in each section of the reticle, however, this scope has 6 dots. This is also not a first focal plane scope, so as far as ranging purposes this only works with these mil dots on 10x. Even in broad daylight on the higher power settings you could see this just fine. It lights up both red and green, whichever you choose. It has 5 different settings for each color. At night you can put it on the lowest setting, which is not over powering. However, you cannot see anything except green or red if you try to use the highest power setting at night. During the daylight the higher power settings worked great though. Overall, this is cool to play with, but I don’t see the point especially since this scope would not be all that great for hunting at night.

          I’m mixed on what to give the illuminated reticle score wise. I think it works great, and I would give it a 10/10 for that. However, I’m not sure it deserves a score that high, since I don’t see the point in it.

          All in all, my overall opinion of this scope is that if you are doing a lot of shooting in daylight hours on 10 power and under and want something that tracks well and is repeatable while still being on a budget, this is a good choice. However, if you are us

Posted By: Magnumdood
Date Posted: September/01/2010 at 01:26
Originally posted by hometheaterman hometheaterman wrote:

...In my dimly lit yard, I looking into the edges of the woods, I could see some stuff, but in the brush I found it hard to make out anything, where I could with my naked eye...
That should tell you all you need to know.

America - Home of the Free

               Because of the Brave

Posted By: hometheaterman
Date Posted: September/01/2010 at 10:54
Yeah, it does. However, what can you expect for $70? You are getting many features of scopes in the $500+ range for $70. You have to give up something. That being said, the glass is the only place I saw that this scope suffered. 

Posted By: Kickboxer
Date Posted: September/01/2010 at 11:18
If it holds up for a while, could be a decent value.  Everyone but me hates BSA, but I've got a Sweet .22 that's been performing very well for years.  Yes, it's a little "darker" and "fuzzier" at 18x than a Zeiss or Swarovski would be, but it only cost me about $40.00. 

Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.

There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living

Posted By: stickbow46
Date Posted: September/01/2010 at 16:45
Thanks for a fair review Home,nice work.

Pearls of Wisdom are Heard not Spoken

Posted By: tman1965
Date Posted: September/02/2010 at 08:02
Home--- my son and I bought a couple of these about 3 yrs ago just to check them out and because they did look pretty cool, especially for the price. one is on a 308 the other is on a 30-06 and both are still holding up just fine!

Sometimes my tongue outruns my brain and I say something I haven't thought of yet!

Posted By: hometheaterman
Date Posted: September/04/2010 at 23:12
Glad to hear they are holding up. I was curious to how they would hold up over time, especially on a rifle that size. 

Posted By: hometheaterman
Date Posted: September/07/2010 at 11:24
I'm going to add an update to this.

I have to say this thing really does impress me for the money it costs. I just wish the glass was better.

Anyway, during the last week, I had a friend over and I was showing him this scope as he seemed interested in it. I was showing him how positive the clicks felt on the adjustment knobs. So I did some turning of the knobs back and forth some. Anyway, when I was done I set the knobs back to 0 which is where my 50 yard zero is set. I got the rifle out today and decided to do some squirrel hunting. I had of course been playing with the knobs earlier on in the week like I said so the though crossed my mind to check the poi before hunting with it. However, I just didn't have time to do it. Anyway, I headed out into the woods and after sitting for about an hour a squirrel ran out about 40 yards in front of me. I put the scope on him and pulled the trigger. I hit him right in the side of the head like I was aiming. So apparently, the adjustment knobs are still returning to zero just fine.

I'm really surprised, but impressed with how well this thing tracks and how it seems very repeatable. I've not seen this in most cheap scopes. If they had of put better glass in this scope, it could be one of the best scopes out there imo. It just feel solid and seems to work well. It has glass that's is decent, but not great.

Posted By: tahqua
Date Posted: September/09/2010 at 12:21
Mechanically, your findings are surprising. Optics wise, your findings aren't surprising.
Thanks for the report.


Posted By: hometheaterman
Date Posted: September/25/2010 at 00:30
Well, I've gotten to do some more testing with this scope so I thought I'd update this post. Anyway, I got to do some more testing in low light and compare it to both some scopes I have laying around, and some friends have. The test I'm sure wasn't the best, but we were looking across the yard which is around 25 yards. We had a light on the house that was on and you could see the edge of the woods with the naked eye, but the corners were very dark, and you couldn't see them.

The scopes I compared it against were a Burris Fullfield II 3-9x40mm, a Nikon Prostaff 3-9x40mm, a Simmons 3-9x32, a Tasco Bucksight(spelling? This is the $30 model from Walmart) 3-9x40mm, and a Leupold VX-I 3-9x40. All of the scopes were tested on the lowest power settings, although I did try them all on 4x also to make it a fair comparison with the CenterPoint. My results were halfway surprising, but not all that surprising either to me at least.

Anyway, this is just my opinion, and it was really hard to tell a difference at all between some of these scopes, so don't take my opinion for gospel. Plus it wasn't a very formal test.

Anyway, the Burris Fullfield II was the clear winner. It just blew away the other scopes. In the part of the woods that you could see with your naked eye, just looked bright and super clear through this scope. I could clearly make out bark on some of the tree's. The reticle was also probably the most visible in the low light. This scope just stood out from the others. In the corners of the woods that I couldn't make out with the naked eye, I could see one or two shadows, but not tell what anything was. Well, when looking through this scope, I could clearly see a wood pile with logs piled up, as well as some brush. It was very clear, and I could make out everything very well even in the dark spots as well as still see the reticle. This scope didn't surprise me being the winner.

The second place is what really surprised me. This would go to the Simmons 3-9x32. It was very clear, and while I could see the reticle the whole time, It didn't stand out as well as the Burris. In the lit area's of the woods, I could see just fine. It wasn't as clear as the Burris, but it was decently clear. In the low light area's of the woods in the corners, I could still clearly make out the wood piles, the brush, and most of the things I could with the Burris. Now it didn't look as detailed to me, but I could see pretty well with it still.

Next up is a hard spot to pick. The Tasco, Nikon Prostaff, Leupold VX-I, and the CenterPoint all seemed pretty close. The Tasco was fairly clear and I could see well in both the lit area's as well as the darker corners. The reticle stood out decently on the Tasco. Overall, it was pretty decent, but nothing super special. The Nikon didn't seem quite as clear and looked slightly darker to me as well as the reticle being harder to see. This was the standard Nikon reticle, not the BDC. It just didn't seem quite as nice as the Tasco in the low light. The CenterPoint I could still make out the wood pile and brush in the dark area's, but it wasn't near as clear, and while I could tell it was brush, I couldn't see the detail on the sticks. The reticle was visible, but I couldn't make out the mil dots on it, I could just see the main lines. Now the illuminated reticle of the CenterPoint would have worked nicely here except for the fact that even on the lowest setting it really washed out the rest of the picture and you couldn't really see anything else except for the lit up reticle. This was a really hard position to pick, as they were all pretty close and it was very small differences. I guess I'd have to say the Tasco, then Prostaff, then CenterPoint, but they just were all really so close.

I would have given the last spot to the Leupold VX-I. This was the worst, and it wasn't by a little bit. It was a huge difference. In the lit area's that I could see fine with my eyes, looked great through this scope. I could make out the bark on the trees, and just looked great. When I moved to the darker corners of the woods, I couldn't see anything at all. It looked washed out looking. I couldn't make out the wood pile, or the brush. I wouldn't even be able to tell you there was a wood pile there. For some reason it just looked washed out and made it really hard to see in all of the darker area's. I could still see the reticle, but nothing behind it.

                However, I did a little more comparing tonight. I cleaned the lens on the Leupold VX-I tonight. It looked fairly clean when just visually looking at it, but I decided what the heck and cleaned them anyway. Doing a low light test now, it's a lot better than it was. It's still no where near on par with the FFII, but it's pretty close to the Prostaff now. It was very very hard to tell a difference in low light between the Prostaff and the VX-I.

So overall, that's my opinion and I'm sure it doesn't mean much and take it with a grain of salt if you'd like, but it was fun getting to look through the different scopes, and those are my observations. Of course everyone eyes are different too.

Posted By: 300S&W
Date Posted: September/25/2010 at 08:35
 I don't see your findings surprising at all.  The FFII is a step up in class over the rest you tested.  It's more in the VX-II,Nikon Team Primos,class.  Now if you really want to see a difference with a scope that costs just a bit more than the FFII try a 3-9x40 Bushnell Elite 4200.

"I ain't got time to bleed!"

Posted By: slowr1der
Date Posted: September/25/2010 at 11:05
Great writeup.

Posted By: hometheaterman
Date Posted: September/25/2010 at 11:07
I'd really like to try a Bushnell Elite 4200, unfortunately I don't own one nor know anyone who does that I can test out. However, I may have one one day and get to try it out. The other scope I'd really like to try out would be a Vortex Viper. I've really been tempted to order one since they are on clearance, but I just don't have the extra cash laying around right now.

Posted By: hometheaterman
Date Posted: September/30/2010 at 19:10
I updated my review as I did a little more comparing tonight. I cleaned the lens on the Leupold VX-I tonight. It looked fairly clean when just visually looking at it, but I decided what the heck and cleaned them anyway. Doing a low light test now, it's a lot better than it was. It's still no where near on par with the FFII, but it's pretty close to the Prostaff now. It was very very hard to tell a difference in low light between the Prostaff and the VX-I. 

Posted By: Benjamin321
Date Posted: October/05/2019 at 19:03
I recently bought the centerpoint 4x16 40mm scope ,,,, mounted on a AR15 bore sighted in but somehow it seems to keep moving ,,,at 25 yards, it still won't even hit a 10x10 target ,,,,, don't have the receipt to return ,,,, this my 2nd scope one mounted on a 22-250 and now my ar15 neither seem to zero in(ar15) or stay sighted in (22-250) .

Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01 -
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd. -