Simmons, and Tasco are both are made by Bushnell.
Bushnell bough out both Simmons, and Tasco.
Call the tech phone number in the paper work.
I looks like the factory focus setting is wrong.
It could be a factory defect, so ask them to fix, or replace the scope.

JMHO

Good advice--I have a smaller Simmons, the one that came on it and actually seems to work fine, that I can remount while I wait to see if they can straighten out this one. Thanks---John

I spent 765.00 for my Trijicon Accupoint it is by far the best scope I have ever owned crystal clear and oh my gosh the reticle is just awesome

No way for agreement
 

Especially on a forum.
Thank goodness they still sell $100 and less scopes. And not every hunters has good or better eye sight. And not every hunter has big bill folds and great big credit card balances.

I have an inexpensive Bushnell "telescope" that I've used for decades at the rifle ranges. Never shot at dawn or late in the day, so I never needed one that cost $800, that sees better at dawn and dusk.

Some scopes see better in the dark, which for intended purposes, is before or after legal shooting purposes.

Of course, more expensive scopes have advantages. In shadows, they pick out the racks better. And they can make a shooting difference.

But hunters can still shoot with inexpensive scopes, and that can make a hunting difference for some hunters.

If you don't ask a lot from your optics, a cheap scope will do the job. If you are demanding of your optics (shooting in HIGH light, low light, precision shooting, LONG range shooting, dialing in dope, etc etc), then the spread becomes important.

More expensive scopes will generally have better: Clarity, resolution, eye relief, adjustment range, adjustment truth, durability, parallax truth, fog prevention, etc (know I'm forgetting a few, but you get the point).

For example, the difference in a Nikon Prostaff, Buckmasters, and Monarch, in my personal experience, is in their truth across mag adjustment and light transmission. In low light, it is almost impossible to get a prostaff or buckmasters to NOT have a fuzzy halo around the rim at the top mag settings (sometimes in high light for the prostaff), whereas the Monarch does much better.

It doesn't make sense putting a $40 saddle on a $5 horse, but you also don't put a $100 saddle on a $40,000 horse (not exaggerating for those that aren't familiar with performance horses). Sure, if you're not asking much out of your horse, that $100 used salebarn saddle will be fine, buf if you're demanding much out of your riding, i.e. sorting and doctoring cattle for 12hrs or more each day, that saddle will cripple you and your horse both.

I generally spend about the same on my rifle and scope. If I just want a fun rifle to go play with, I buy a $200-300 rifle and a $200 scope and go have a good time. If I want something that I can do some serious hunting with, I'll likely have $700-1000 in the rifle and the same in the scope. Over the bench or off the mat, I can easily have $1500-2000 in the scope, and $2500-4000 in the rifle (or more, depending on how long I stay stubborn with a rifle I need to pitch).

Here's another $.02. Several responders have already covered the ground that I am going to. So this is probably not much more than an echo at worst and a reinforcement at best. My expereicne is practically identical to Timbercruiser's.

A very long and boring story short, the field performance of hunting optics of any kind is pretty much directly related to the MSRP. The high end stuff that runs around $1000 - $2500 are all superb. They are rugged, crystal clear essentially edge to edge, with phenominal detail catching contrast, and the low light performance is almost perfect. All of these attributes are bonafied advantages in the field. Can everyone drop that kind of coin? Certainly not.

My advice is do your research and spend as much as you can. Decide how much is it worth to your style and frequency of hunting. I hunt a ton. I have hunted in rugged terrain, in swamp bottoms, blowing dust, in 100F, in -30 F, in driving rain, in sleet and snow, etc. I demand high performance and had to save, and save, and save to afford what I use ... which is now top of the line optics.

A buddy of mine pointed out that if I'd forego a soda a day, at the end of a year I'd have about $300-$350 to put in a scope. So do the math .... tf you had intended to spend about a $100, then now you'd have about $400 - $500. You can buy a very good scope in that price range. Save up for 2-3 years and you can more or less afford about anything on the market in hunting scopes. I'm here to tell you that you'll never regret it one iota. i

"I generally spend about the same on my rifle and scope." Nomercy

+1

Sometime more if the rifle is under $700.

You see, I put the same scope on all my boltguns, so I get the same "sight picture" no matter which gun I'm shooting.

I use Burris Signature Select 4X -16X 44MM with Ballistic Plex Illuminated Reticle


Now that I think about it, my AR wears the same scope also.

I've tried to dumb down this idea of hitting what I'm aimming at, adjusting for parallax, adjusting the power, and compensating for drop to it's lowest common denominator; so that I can make those shot even if there is a very small window of opportunity.

$800
There is plenty of glass in the mid level market and good glass at that.

Some things are out of my market
 

Have seen progressive increases in scope capabilities but there is a limit to the budget.
First, I would never put a $300 or more scope on a 30-30, a short range rifle. But then I go by my eyes and my budget.

I do my eye test; not your eye test. I only shoot what I see. And no one else can know if any shooter is affected by a tinge of night blindness, that would affect the shooting at dawn or dusk or into the shadows of mid-day.

Every year I do a late day test on my scopes. It's strictly a seeing project with no shooting. If the scopes and my eyes pass the test, I keep the scopes and don't worry about an $800 scope.

...........But Ridge, I need 16X to shoot yotes ! LOL