Recommend me a scope

[Jeffery8mm]

I am looking to scope a bolt action .22 rifle. I have a Nikon 4x32, but at 50 yards, the crosshairs cover the circle on the target!! Should I get a bigger circle??:grin:

I dont need alot of light gathering, as this will be a daytime target/plinking rifle. Very informal shooting. Will a 3x9x40 be a good choice?? Also, since there is little recoil involved, can I get by with a "lesser" scope than a nikon?
What is a good inexpensive scope these days?? Any and all input is greatly appreciated.
Jeff

[Jim]

I have a 4X 32MM Bushnell Sportview on my Cricket. It suits me. I wouldn't reccommend a Tasco for high powered rifles, but I think it would suffice for 50 yard shooting on a 22. They can be had for well under $50.

[williamwaco]

I have a 4X 32MM Bushnell Sportview on my Cricket. It suits me. I wouldn't reccommend a Tasco for high powered rifles, but I think it would suffice for 50 yard shooting on a 22. They can be had for well under $50.




Ditto on every word.




.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Jeff,

Just the Ol'Coot's opinion here, but beware of cheap scopes, you may get just what you pay for.

One real problem with some scopes and .22s, is paralax, which can make for large and inconsistant groups and make it very hard to find out what 22 ammo your rifle prefers.

Take a medium sized card board box, cut a "U" shaped notch on two sides and place your rifle in the cut outs and then adjust the box until your cross hairs are on some point of aim at say 50yds.

Without touching the rifle or box, move your head/eye around behind the scope and if the cross hairs move on the target, you have a paralax problem.

Most centerfire rifle scopes have the paralax set for 100yds or more, and can be a real problem at rimfire distances.

Some scopes with an adjustable objective (A.O.) will cure this problem while other will not.

I had a Tasco (Trashco) 4X12 with A.O. on a .22 and it was not only not sharp/clear but was what I paid for, junk.

I have seen some of the low end Bushnells have very bad paralax problems.

I currently have a Leupold 3X9 EFR (Extended Focus Range) on my Clark Custom 77/22 and can without question recommend this scope for use on a .22 rimfire.

Adjust the A.O. and not only is the scope now in focus, but paralax is a non-issue.

The Leupold also has fine cross hairs and would not have the issue you are speaking of.

I would think there are other scopes equally good, but just know that with low priced scopes, you may or may not get a product without issues.

Keep em coming!

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[1Shirt]

Have a Bushnell Banner 3x9 on my 10-22 that works very well
1Shirt!:coffee:

[Mk42gunner]

Hunt around for a used Leupold, at one time I had one of the M-8 4X with fine crosshairs and a small dot.

The reticle wasn't very good for hunting, but it worked well for plinking with a .22.

Robert

[Ickisrulz]

This is a nice one:

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-vari-x-2-7x28mm-compact-rifle-scope.html

Optics planet has good prices too and usually free shipping. Search for 5% off coupon.

[Tom-ADC]

For a nice 22 scope that does just great check out your local Walmart for the Center Points I have one on a Savage 93R17 Fv and it is a tack driver.
4-16 x 40 mm $70. Didn't like the rings that came with it.
25 rounds back to back 100 yds 17 HMR.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL174/1021972/1908390/357570616.jpg

[crabo]

I'd check out the Muellers. They have great reviews on Rimfirecentral.com


http://gunkings.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=148&zenid=hvr4ksm2mbl2lgmt1gdg18mn01

http://www.joeboboutfitters.com/

[pergoman]

If you want to get the best accuracy and smallest groups from your gun/ammo combo at normal 22 hunting distances, you gotta pay attention to parralax. Don't even consider a normal 3-9 which is intended to be paralax free at 100 yards. You will NEVER regret good glass! Get a scope with adjustable objective or you will never know how good your combo really is at 25 or 50 yards.
A Bob Hart quote that has stuck with me for years: "There are a lot more bad scopes than bad rifles".

[woody1]

This is a nice one:

http://www.opticsplanet.net/leupold-vari-x-2-7x28mm-compact-rifle-scope.html

Optics planet has good prices too and usually free shipping. Search for 5% off coupon.

Leupold VX-I 2-7x28mm Rimfire Rifle Scope w/ FREE UPS
This is one fine scope for a 22 or most anything else. I have one and yeah I know, it's more than I paid for the rifle! BUT, it's the only scope I'll ever have to buy for it for hunting. Leupold also told me I could put it on any rifle I wanted to. It has the same recoil tolerance of their other scopes. Regards, Woody

[jh45gun]

Old Coot I have a Tasco target scope on my Marlin 80 for silhouette shooting it is a 10x40 50mm and it is clear and precise and the target turrets track like they are supposed to. It has the target dot reticule. But then it is not a exactly cheap either it cost 150 bucks.

[LEADHOPPER]

The Sportsman's Guide has the BSA Sweet 22 scopes on sale right now for I believe $39.99. It is a 3-9x40 with AO. I have one of these on my RUger 77/22 and it works great. And the price is great too.

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

jh45gun,

Really glad your Tasco is working out fine for you!!!!!!!!!!! Good news.

But, and this is the Ol'Coot's opinion, $150 is very cheap for a good new scope, but a great deal if it is a used Leupold or another used scope of equal value/quality.

I hear of folks who buy the lower priced scopes and have good results, and hope you continue to be one of them. That is good.

However, for the quality I expect and demand, I am not surprised when my scope price approaches the cost of the firearm it sits on.

For example, my Clark Custom 77/22 was $785 shipped from Clark (I paid $600) and my scope - Leupold 3X9 EFR - was $300 - 400. Got a great deal on the Clark!!! Story in itself.

It would be a similar picture with my RUGER Hawkeye and 3.5X10 Leupold. The cost difference on my 243 and 45/70 is much greater, because both Leupold scopes were, "used."

Anyway, Glad your scope is working out for you!

Keep em coming!

Crusty Deary Ol'Coot

[flounderman]

I wouldn't spend a lot of money for a scope for a 22. parallax is a problem with some, but unless you intend to do all your shooting over sandbags, just about any of the scopes available will shoot better than you can and the ammunition isn't that high quality any more. a scope with decent brightness, and a decent field of view can be had new for 70.00 or less. you can buy a used, higher dollar scope for about the same amount if you look. one of the old k4 weavers makes a good scope and can be had for 50.00 used. you can't buy accuracy, but you can buy ammunition and learn it. you don't need more scope than you need on a 22 or any other rifle for that matter

[BruceB]

An option you may want to consider....and one I'm using myself...is one of the "blackpowder/shotgun" scopes.

The latest one I bought only cost around $125, I think.

It has a 1" tube for good field of view, with 1/4-minute click adjustments. Most importantly, this class of instrument is usually parallax-free at SEVENTY-FIVE yards....perfect for rimfire rifles. This type may be a little bulky for super-slim .22 designs, but they are right at home on anything approaching a full-size rifle.


I'm a strong believer in using "non-.22" scopes on my rimfires. Now, with the shorter-distance parallax sttings on these "shotgun" scopes (and their greater durability compared to ".22 scopes", they make a very practical set-up.

[451 Pete]

Jeffery,
In your post you mentioned using the scope for informal target shooting. Your Nikon 4x was designed as a hunting scope and the larger crosshairs are there for quicker target aquisition in low light conditions.
Inexpensive target scopes can be prone to fogging, parralax or not being repeatable in thier settings. I always try and purchase the best sights I can afford, whether they are iron sights or something in a scope. This is not saying that you cannot find a bargain but that you normally get what you pay for.
I would rather buy a used scope of known good quality than a cheap scope of questionable merit. A quality scope will let you know what the accuracy potential of you and your rifle is.
Back in the 1960's I paid as much for a 2x7 Leopold scope as I did the deer rifle I was mounting it on. About $80 bucks as I remember. I still have that rifle and scope, never a problem with either one. Two years ago my one son purchased a Ruger 10-22 T used. It came with the exact same scope, a Leopold 2x7. To my way of thinking that is a scope that has withstood the test of time.

You know, come to think about it, that works out to about a buck and a half a year for that scope of mine if my math and memory are right. I guess maybe it was a cheap scope after all. I hope my boy has as good of luck with his, my bet is that he will.


Just my thinking ..... Pete

[Crusty Deary Ol'Coot]

Well, guess how much you spend on a scope might depend on what the abilities or lack there of, of your rifle.

If I would buy a scope as flounderman suggests, I would have GREATLY short changed the abilities of my rifle.

To do so, it would have made more sense to buy a battered J.C. Higgins "barn rifle" then a Clark Custom rifle.

No, if I had a CZ 452, a Cooper, Kimber, an "Annie", a model 52 Winchester or a number of other good shooting .22 rifles, including the Clark Custom with it's Walther barrel, I would have just wasted my money if I bought a bargin basement scope.

Also, I'd gladly show anyone willing to watch that there are, indeed, still a good number of very good .22 ammos still out there, and I'll even let them shoot a rifle/scope combination able to take advantage of good and not so good ammo while making nice small groups.

And no, I am not a competition shooter, but I did desire a firearm and scope that was a cut above the average in grouping ability and I got what I paid for.

I bought a .22, said by the manufacture to have a "competition" level trigger, and the ability to shoot 1/2" - 50 yard groups and topped it with a 4X12 Tasco with A.O. NOT!!!!!!

Big mistake both directions.

On my current rifle/scope combination, I paid a fair bit more, but without question, I got what I paid for.

Price is a consideration! But, the price is soon forgotten when it brings top level proformence, while the pain of a bad choice is not cured by even the lowest price.

Good news for those who have the lower priced scopes and are happy with the choice and quality. However, I have been there and done that and learned my lesson and won't go there again.

Keep em coming!

Crusty Deary Ol'coot

[50-170-700 sharps]

I mounted a Barska 3-12 on my Ruger 10-22. it cost about 50 bucks and it serves its job well, but I would recommend spending a bit more money on a scope, it is worth it. I do think that 3-12 or something around there is a very good power range for a 22 long rifle. Jim

[Rokkit Syinss]

I'll add second recommendation for Centerpoint. For around $60 you can get one with side focus and it'll work from 10 yards on out.

[leadman]

I have one of the BSA Sweet 22 scopes on my Remington 581 LH bolt. It has the target type turrets marked for the 22lr drop in yards. Three different elevation turrets for the 3 common bullet weights. The glass is nice and clear also.
Sportsman's Guide, $40.

[jh45gun]

Old Coot I have one Leupold an older 4x M8 compact that sits on my Henry 22 Mag. All my other glass is cheaper optics and non have failed me including some older Weaver scopes. My take on it is that some of the cheaper glass to day is as good as some of the expensive stuff of yesterday that is still being used. And of course there is still a lot of older Weaver and Bushnell ect scopes out there being used with good results. To tell the truth the only reason I have that Leupold is I bought it at a rummage sale for 28 bucks. I sent it in to be checked out to make sure it was good and the factory just refurbished the guts said the glass was good. That is the one good thing about Leupold got to love that warranty for who ever owns it.

[CZGuy]

Oh, I am getting a little tired of always hearing about bushnell this and nikon that or weaver what. Take a look at a Hawke and then post back. Darn bushnell scopes anyway......:groner: