I've had excellent performance from Simmons scopes, both on my rifles and my father has one on his. 22-250.
The problem is that any time Simmons is mentioned, there are always those who say they are crap and they they suggest a scope that costs 10x the price as an alternative! What kind of a comparison is that? My Ford is too slow. Well, try a Ferrari then, they're better . . .
To have a valid comparison, you have to take a Simmons model and compare it to models of a similar price from other makers. It's redicilious to compare low-line Simmons models to anything made by Burris or Leupold.
I have Whitail Classic on my deer rifle and it's been great. It holds zero very well even from season to season, never had any problems with fogging or anything else. When I bought it I couldn't afford anything more and since it works well, I haven't bothered to change it.
There is certainly a difference in performance between low and high end optics, but as another poster said, many hunters can't afford a scope that's more than their monthly house payment. I have 3 Simmons scopes now and they both work great for the price. One of them is on my Contender pistol and it takes a tremendous pounding shooting sillouttes, I had intended to replace it but it just keeps working and working and working.
I have higher end scopes on other rifles and on my Contender handgun, and there certainly is a quality difference in terms of optical performacnce between a Simmons and say a Burris. The question is does something like edge of field clearity really matter to you and are you willing to pay hundreds more for a scope with higher performance?
Grouse