Rimfire Central Firearm Forum banner

A rifle scope for a 22lr

11K views 62 replies 22 participants last post by  SarahRogers01 
#1 · (Edited)
Apparently a very easy choice, many people think: no more then $ 200 and that's all.

When I say 22 I mean ammunitions from 22 short to 22 HV, shooting at distances from 20 to 200 yards. With good and low light.

About magnifications I'm thinking a versatile 3-9x50 or 3-12x56, but I will be happy to read your advices.

And now the most difficoult choices:
- balistic turrets or balistic reticle like Mil-dot or new ones?
- reticle position on the first or second plane?
- illuminated recticle or not?

About budget I say $ 1000, but I'm flexible.
 
#9 ·
...why so much magnification for a 22?
Magnification should be dictated by the size of the target you use, how far away it is, and how precisely you need to place the shot, not the cartridge in use.

First determine the size of the target you are trying to hit.... not the whole target but the size of the 10-ring or bull's eye that you are trying to hit.... then try this experiment:

Get a sheet of paper and a black marker. Draw a dot the size of the target and blacken it in... not a hollow circle. Hang your new target on the back fence or an outside wall of the house. Now back away from your target until it looks the way you want your target to look when you are looking at it through a scope 100m away. Cup your hand to make a tube and look at it through there, or use the cardboard tube out of a toilet paper roll.

Okay, how far away did you get before the target got too hard to see to your satisfaction? 7m? 20m? Let's say you managed to get 10m away. 100m / 10m = 10x --> you will need a 10x scope to get that view of your target at 100m (assuming decent lenses, etc). Only 7m away? 100m / 7m = 14x --> you need a 14x scope to get that view from 100m.

Want to shoot that target at 200m? Same drill just different math: 200m / 10m = 20x scope. 200m / 7m = 28x scope. Etc.
 
#4 ·
Apparently a very easy choice, many people think: no more then $ 200 and that's all.

When I say 22 I mean ammunitions from 22 short to 22 HV, shooting at distances from 20 to 200 yards. With good and low light.

About magnifications I'm thinking a versatile 3-9x50 or 3-12x56, but I will be happy to read your advices.

And now the most difficoult choices:
- turret adjustment or special recticle like Mil-dot or new ones?
- recticle position on the first or second plane?
- illuminated recticle or not?

About budget I say $ 1000, but I'm flexible.
See my reply to 1dogdown

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#8 · (Edited)
I've had higher magnification scopes, but my .22 rifles currently sport Primary Arms fixed 6x ACSS scopes. The BDC reticle is tuned for .22lr HV ammo, but you can learn to use it for lower velocity ammo (although it only goes to 200 yards with HV). It can be had for just over $100 from optics planet on the right days, regular price is $119 IIRC.

EDIT: Crap, I misread the budget. They have a version with better glass for $289 or so. I'll be no help in this one though, as none of my scopes are anywhere near that expensive.
 
#12 ·
Sightron SIII 6-24X with the Xmas tree reticle is what I have mounted on a Rem504 with a lilia barrel.
The reticle helps, but is not the primary means of getting out to 200+ for me.
I went with the Sightron because it has about 100moa of adjustment, which is enough to get you out there w/o a angled scope base.

I'd rather know your dope for various ranges with the ammo the gun is zero'd with..then guess with various hold overs. The reticle is nice for quick second shots or windage holds.
 
#18 ·
Thanks for that.

Yep, mag depends mostly on how you intend to use the scope -- target vs hunting, need for speed vs precision, type of target and distance, etc. Also, we can't ignore the eyesight of the user or the quality of the glass.

A youngster with excellent glass needs far less mag than an older shooter or one handicapped with poor glass.
 
#19 · (Edited)
Now I'm thinking about a balistic reticle, because I think they are much more practical and immediate then balistic turrets. Am I right?

This is the reticle P3L by Smith and Bender, I think it should be an interesting solution for 22s and low light too!



What do you think about?
 
#21 · (Edited)
Now I'm thinking about a balistic reticle, because I think they are much more practical and immediate then balistic turrets. Am I right?
Immediate? Yes. They are especially excellent for use in adjusting for wind effects even if you have used the turret to adjust for range. Just note where the shot landed on the reticle's scale and move that point to your target.

Precise? No.

If shooting at a known distance (and you keep notes about settings for each range) you get better precision by adjusting for distance (elevation) using the turrets simply because the adjustments are finer than are the distances between the marks on the reticle. Where the reticle method has an advantage is with unknown ranges (mark the impact on the reticle's scale and adjust from there) and where speed is more important than precision.

For example, if you are shooting at a hit-or-miss target, such as metal plate that must be knocked over for score, the marks on the reticle as aimpoints are sufficient. If you are trying to place the bullet inside a small 10-ring adjusting the turret for elevation is going to give better results.

As for turrets, I prefer them marked/graduated in MOA (and fractions of) rather than having them matched to the trajectory of any particular cartridge. That makes them much more useful (flexible). I also prefer them to be easily turned by hand rather than requiring a tool such as a coin or screwdriver. Best case would be such a turret matched with a reticle such as you show above.
 
#20 ·
OP has 1000 dollar limit man o man I could spend that in a heart beat :D:D

Might want to look at the 10x50x60 Sightron
http://www.opticsagent.com/SIGHTRON-SIII-10-50X60-LONG-RANGE-MOA-RET_p_1320.html

or the Leupold 45x45 https://www.opticsplanet.com/leupold-competition-series-45x45mm-scope.html

I have a T36 and would love to up grade to a used March Optics 10x50x60

https://www.opticsplanet.com/march-...flescopes.html?_iv_code=2A2-RS-MO60RS-MAR1020

Never Never too much power in a scope :D:D:D:D

good luck and post pics when u are done :bthumb:
 
#22 ·
Rima22 sir the most important thing is the reticle first...I have had reticles so thin they would disappear in some back grounds and other so thick you could only use them for elephant hunting :p...not really but better for big game or close range pig hunting. You want to find one that works for you...not one you have to make work.

The magnification range you need/like and then the brand is last.

Good luck on your quest. :bthumb:

Signalman :mad::):D
 
#31 · (Edited)
I must have an Adjustable Objective to avoid the parallax error of many fixed objective scopes, often factory set for 100 or even 150yds. I do shoot those distances, and farther with 22s but most is closer than 100yds. I have enough trouble without having to deal with needless parallax issues.
I want Target Turrets with 1/8th moa finger adjustments.
I dont shoot in early morning or late day light so the Huge objectives are of no use for me, and they set the scope up too high for a good cheek rest. My 40mm objectives are just fine.
My current 3-12x is good at 50yds, the 4-16X is better and the 20x better yet, and for even farther. The variables can be turned down though after trying ‘em out I cranked ‘em back up. They work fine down there, I like the magnification (aim small/miss small).
I know what reticle I like for what I do, probably pretty meaningless to you; but I have the crosshair c/w mil-dots on one now and think I can have the best of worlds by having such.
I have been pleasantly surprised by the optical quality of newish scope offerings, even at the lower end of the pricing structure. So much that many of my old favorite El Paso Weavers are now going on the gun show table. Its a new world for me to venture into but hits are always better than misses.
 
#33 · (Edited)
I must have an Adjustable Objective to avoid the parallax error of many fixed objective scopes, often factory set for 100 or even 150yds. I do shoot those distances, and farther with 22s but most is closer than 100yds. I have enough trouble without having to deal with needless parallax issues.
I never had a rifle scope with parallax corrector and I never felt the need to have it.
Does it help for shots at 30-100 yards?
I can see the most of them don't have this feature... then I suppose it'is not essential. Am I righ or wrong?
In any case, thank you fot your advice.

I dont shoot in early morning or late day light so the Huge objectives are of no use for me, and they set the scope up too high for a good cheek rest. My 40mm objectives are just fine.
I shot in early morning or late day, I love 56 mm objective and very bright lenses.

My current 3-12x is good at 50yds, the 4-16X is better and the 20x better yet, and for even farther. The variables can be turned down though after trying 'em out I cranked 'em back up. They work fine down there, I like the magnification (aim small/miss small).
Only ones in my live I tried to use a 6.5-18x42 I hated it.

I know what reticle I like for what I do, probably pretty meaningless to you; but I have the crosshair c/w mil-dots on one now and think I can have the best of worlds by having such.
Well... I'm thinking about Mil-dot just because I believe is one of the best to use without turn continuously the turrets.
In the meantime I'm thinking how much big could be the dots at 100 or 200 yards? May be they can cover completely a small targer.

Do you think these new new kind of Mil-dots reticle will avoid this problem?



I have been pleasantly surprised by the optical quality of newish scope offerings, even at the lower end of the pricing structure. So much that many of my old favorite El Paso Weavers are now going on the gun show table. Its a new world for me to venture into but hits are always better than misses.
I know it but not well enough.
Long time ago it was more easy, good quality scopes like Zeiss, Swarovsky, Smith and Bender etc. costs four times more then medium quality.
In the last 20 years a lot of things change, top brands like Zeiss has got three different lines, entry level, medium and top.
Today many new brands offer good quality and services for half price, or less, of the famous brands.

It will be not an easy choice for me, this is because I opened this thread. ;)

Thank you for your suggestions. :bthumb:
 
#37 ·
I agree with Jester. I love shooting long distance and my experiences in shooting beyond 500 yards at targets I never go beyond 9X due to mirage and haze in the hot west Texas climate. The exception is rimfire, specifically 22lr. I love the high magnification scopes because where I shoot the range has a breeze that hits you from all directions of the compass rose. I find this challenging and a way to practice shooting and reading the wind in windy conditions. I love shooting 22lr at 200 yards and at the moment I have the Sightron Big Sky 4-16-X44 on my 10/22 but will put higher mag scopes on my other 22lr rifles for the following reasons.

1. At shorter distances of 25 to 100 yards you do not need a spotting scope to see bullet holes.

2. At 200 yards I find that this is the max distance that you can use max magnifications beyond 9X and clearly see the bulls eye and if you use shoot N C targets you can see hits as well.

3. Buying a high magnification scope is literally a one time purchase for the rest of your life that will remain useful throughout the magnifications the scope offers, because as you age and your vision gets worse, which it will, you will be grateful that you can always increase the magnification to view your targets. I now find that for me 16X is not enough.

Now keep in mind my recommendations simply applies to rimfire shooting, because when I shoot beyond 500yards with centerfire rifles I always find that depending on how hot the day is my scope remains dialed in between 7X and 10X.

One more thing to remember and this is crucial. Always and I mean always make sure that your scope has and adjustable objective lens or a parallax adjustment knob. So save a few more months and buy yourself a nice sightron. They have a target scope with very fine crosshairs and their glass and warranty are top notch.
 
#43 · (Edited)
Imo, YES, especially if you want to shoot small targets under 100yds.
Why? Well, just the parallax can make your point of impact off by a fair bit IF you dont always get your head, and thus eye, in exactly the same position behind the scope Every Time. Not an easy thing to do in ‘field positions’ and even an issue on a bench for some (many?).
For instance, I have some older, non AO scopes that have POI variations at 50yds, one up to 1.5”! (that one has rather thick crosshairs which probably contribute to that error). They were fine for larger varmint and deer hunting, not good for trying to shoot dimes.
One of the best pieces of advice Ive ever heard is,”Use the right tool for the job”.
 
#47 ·
Two suggestions:
For simplicity, Redfield makes a .22 LR scope with BDC turrets caled 'Battlezone Tac'. I bought the 2~7 power, and on my CZ 452 it is good out to 200 yards, (IF I am steady enough and using a bipod or other secure rest: I ain't as steady as I once was!).

Almost ANY Nikon scope: Check the Nikon 'SPot-On' BDC Turret system:
https://www.nikonsportoptics.com/en/nikon-products/hunting-spoton/index.page

Nearly every Nikon scope can use the ballistic turrets, and the best part is you order the turrets customised for YOUR cartridge/bullet weight/velocity.

Simply dial in the distance, and take a dead-on hold, then return to your 'zero' point! I use this on a .308 Winchester and .30-06 Gov't, (makes both good to about 800 yards, on a good day), and I will be putting it on a .300 Win Mag soon.

It is the most accurate system you can get without needing to use a computer, or factor the adjustments in your mind- like Mil DOts, or do math-on-paper before you take your first shot.

Oh, yea, they also have an app for Andriod and iPhone if you want to go that route, which is fine, unless you left it at home, or the battery died.

Just one Old Vets experience and opinion...
 
#53 ·
Thank you BadgerJack fot your opinion and advices :bthumb:

Nearly every Nikon scope can use the ballistic turrets, and the best part is you order the turrets customised for YOUR cartridge/bullet weight/velocity.
I don't want to use the turrets, just ones when I tune the the scope on the rifle or when I test new ammunitions.
Later I prefer use only the balistic reticle.

Simply dial in the distance, and take a dead-on hold, then return to your 'zero' point! I use this on a .308 Winchester and .30-06 Gov't, (makes both good to about 800 yards, on a good day), and I will be putting it on a .300 Win Mag soon.
I agree with you, I do the same. :bthumb:
 
#48 ·
Trying to digest all the information on this thread and I find I would still come back to the same two scopes for this exercise. For close in targets, 4-6 power is sufficient and works for me when I need to find critters peaking out from hiding spots. For longer shots I like as much power as I can carry and I need a Adjustable Objective to handle rough distance estimation and parallax adjustment. What I've found to work best for me, which is close to the OP's needs also, is the Leupold 6.5 x 20 x 40 (or 50 if you shoot a lot in low light) with target turrets and fine crosshair or 1/8 Minute dot. The second scope I've used and like a lot for this purpose is the Bausch & Lomb 4200 Elite 6 x 24 with AO (now Bushnell). Both of these scopes have exceptional glass and rock solid adjustments- though I'm not sure you can get the B&L (now Bushnell) scope with target turrets.

My 65 year old eyes like lots of power and light gathering, but my needs require enough power to see small parts of animals hiding at times. I wouldn't have a big problem with the newer 8x32 Leupolds, but I'm afraid the 8 power would be a problem for up close shooting and quick focus and acquisition.

Bob
 
#51 · (Edited)
Trying to digest all the information on this thread and I find I would still come back to the same two scopes for this exercise. For close in targets, 4-6 power is sufficient and works for me when I need to find critters peaking out from hiding spots. For longer shots I like as much power as I can carry and I need a Adjustable Objective to handle rough distance estimation and parallax adjustment. What I've found to work best for me, which is close to the OP's needs also, is the Leupold 6.5 x 20 x 40 (or 50 if you shoot a lot in low light) with target turrets and fine crosshair or 1/8 Minute dot. The second scope I've used and like a lot for this purpose is the Bausch & Lomb 4200 Elite 6 x 24 with AO (now Bushnell). Both of these scopes have exceptional glass and rock solid adjustments- though I'm not sure you can get the B&L (now Bushnell) scope with target turrets.

My 65 year old eyes like lots of power and light gathering, but my needs require enough power to see small parts of animals hiding at times. I wouldn't have a big problem with the newer 8x32 Leupolds, but I'm afraid the 8 power would be a problem for up close shooting and quick focus and acquisition.

Bob
Thank you Bob, for your advices.

All the polite informations I received from you, make me thinking...
Probably my new scope will be 6-24x56, With parallax corrector, illiminated balistic reticle and high quality lenses and mechanical features.

I always used the top quality lenses, It could be difficoult to use "fog scopes" but... quality, prices and market change a lot in the last 10-20 years, I have to verify personally with my eyes. ;)

I don't think my budget mentioned on the start will be enough :( I will see
 
#54 ·
In summary, thanks to your help, I came to these conclusions:

- 6-24 magnifications;

- objective 56 or 50 mm, not less,

- parallax corrector,

- illuminated ballistic reticle on the first focal plane,

- precise and good quality mechanics,

- high quality lenses.


All this can be found today with max € 1000?
 
#55 ·
For what it's worth, I think a 50mm or larger objective is overkill. There is a sense that "more is better." But unless you are shooting in low-light conditions, 40mm gathers plenty of light. A larger objective often requires taller rings, which, in turn, affects cheek placement, sometimes requiring a riser. Finally, if I had a choice between superior optics and an illuminated reticle, I'd go with better glass every time. Simpler. Less to go wrong in the field. No need for batteries. Maybe better resale value on something like a Zeiss. Just my opinion, of course, and I am not much of a hunter. At 200 yards though, you are going to have a lot of problems staying in a 5-inch circle with .22LR. 10-inches is more likely. That is a "vitals" shot on a much larger animal than a .22 LR round can take humanely. Once again, just my opinion.

Also at 200 yards, you are going to need around 60 inches (approx. 1.75 meters or 29 MOA) of adjustment to get your crosshairs on target. This is because .22LR drops like a rock after the first 100 yards/meters. That is a lot. Many scopes won't handle it.

Make sure you check out the amount of adjustment you need on either side of zero, before you plunk down that kilo-euro. ;)
 
#57 ·
I know that it may not be in your price range but I love the Nikon Prostaff Rimfire. I have one on my American 22WMR; my Savage 22 WMR; and my 15-22. It's always the first accessory I buy. I have problems with eyes (old age) and this works well. I have severy different styles of reticles. I have sot them out to 296 yards.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top