Scope Suggestions for .22LR

Big fan of the Weaver rimfire scopes. Last time I looked they had the 2.5-7x, 3-9x, and 4x fixed. All very good. I like them better than Leupold as the reticle is a bit thicker. I would certainly check out Nikon stuff if they are on sale. But I mostly buy Weaver rimfire scopes for normal power ranges and applications.

WardenWolf said:

Yes, except it's 2-4x the cost and less magnification compared to other scopes that will perform just as well on a .22LR. Leupold on a rimfire is a horrible waste of money.

Click to expand...

I disagree, quality is never a waste. I've never regretted money spent on top quality, have frequently regretted wasting money on so-so quality. My 10/22's wear EOtechs and Trijicon MRO's that cost as much or more than the rifles they're on, but they work wonderfully. Bright clear optics, military grade toughness. Overkill? Maybe, but I've not a single regret. If nothing else it gives me redundency with my centerfire optics. And if for some reason if I should ever want to sell the optic for some reason, I'd likely recover a high percentage of my money, plus have a larger potential market.

I think my Leupold 2x7 rimfire is about 32 years old now and still crisp and clear. I did cheap scopes a time or two before I learned better.

Yes, except it's 2-4x the cost and less magnification compared to other scopes that will perform just as well on a .22LR. Leupold on a rimfire is a horrible waste of money.

Click to expand...

I guess that it depends on your intended use for the rimfire, and how critical of a user you are.

If you're blasting offhand at tin cans on a 25 yard berm on a bright sunny day, then any optic will probably do and great fun will be had. If your primary use for the rifle is as a Saturday afternoon range gun 3-4 times a year, then yes - a Simmons 22Mag will probably be more than adequate and it probably doesn't make much sense to get a better optic unless you really just want to.

But if you're hunting squirrel in dappled brush, shooting match grade ammo for group size, doing pest control on the property 24x7, or teaching the mechanics and dynamics of precision centerfire shooting to youngsters by starting them on a 22LR, then maybe you can make the case for something better.

WardenWolf said:

Yes, except it's 2-4x the cost and less magnification compared to other scopes that will perform just as well on a .22LR. Leupold on a rimfire is a horrible waste of money.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I used and enjoyed a Leupold 2-7 rimfire on a CZ for nearly 5 years. I paid $200 for it 5 years ago. Last year, I pulled it off, stuck it back in the box and sold it for $200 to the first person that looked at it.

A good rimfire deserves good glass.

Oh come on, guys. There is ZERO difference in performance at the ranges rimfire is good for. Just because you guys can afford to drop that kind of money doesn't mean you have to do so to get the exact same or even better result. This isn't 1000 yard shooting here. A Simmons or any of various other brands will give you the same shot on shot performance as a Leupold when mounted on a .22. You're advising him to buy something that will give him less scope for the money.

I get that Leupold has a well-deserved cult following at the highest end, but they're not the answer to everything. Even a Nikon is cheaper, and is, for rimfire purposes, just as good.

There is ZERO difference in performance at the ranges rimfire is good for.

Click to expand...

That statement is overly simplistic, and therefore incorrect to some degree. Light gathering, optical edge-to-edge distortion, chromatic distortion, and parallax adjustment are all discriminators that come into play for rimfire rifles just as they do for centerfire rifles.

The fact that you do not value those characteristics does not make them irrelevant to others - only irrelevant to you and how you view/use your rimfires.

giggitygiggity said:

I don't really have a budget in mind. I normally get Leupolds, but for a .22 that costs $250 and will only be shooting 100-150 yards, I don't think a $400 Leupold is necessarily warranted. I just want something that is durable and has good glass and maintains zero... I suppose that's what we want with every scope. My point is that I don't need nor want a scope with capabilities beyond those of the rifle. My other option is to take off a Simmons 8-Point that came with one of my deer rifles and put it on the .22 and then buy a Leupold or Vortex for that deer rifle.

Click to expand...

Lets go back to the OP's 2nd, more clarifying, post and keeping it in this context.


If you want another scope for your deer rifle then by all means do that.


But how I read your post is that you aren't shoot matches, or trying for .25" groups for fun, nor are you relying on this 22 for food on your table via your dusk and dawn hunts.

You're wanting a good honest 22lr package that holds zero well, that will probably be more limited by the ammo and you than the package when shooting 50-150 yards in non-extreme weather and normalish daylight hours.


If that's it.... which describes me too, the Simmons and BSA $50-$75 range are fine. If you want something "nicer" $150 weaver, nikon and a few others are pretty nice. 28-32mm lens picks up plenty of light and provides a nice field of view at common 22lr distances. Heck, I used to shot rabbits on the run with a cruddy Tasco 20mm 3-9x normally on 5-6 power.


IMO, after that you're getting to a point of diminishing returns unless your requirements are more.

I had an aunt that smoked from her early teens until sometime in her early 80s. She died this winter at 92. Based on her experience I recommend smoking as a habit for everyone. My point? Simple: anybody can get lucky and beat the curve, but that doesn't disprove the curve exists.

Good optics will always be good, and cheap optics will always be cheap even if your particular specimin hasn't failed yet. The difference is that in 10 years you can sell your used Leupold for what you paid, and your Simmons will be worth nothing.

Good optics are always a good investment.

With rimfire (22) optics, we all have to learn our preferences. I started out with a $20 Herters 4x rimfire scope and it worked just fine. That was many years ago and I still have that scope on that rifle. For me personally, for normal kinds of rimfire shooting, a 2.5-7x rimfire scope is just about perfect. 3-9x's are okay. Been using the Weaver rimfire scopes and couldn't be more pleased. They also have positive click adjustments.

I have more powerful scopes on 22's also. but for regular shooting, I love that 2.5-7x. It is mounted on a TC 22 rifle and it is a tack driver.

When I started out shooting 22's, I felt that for 22LR ranges, a 4x scope was optimal. I still feel it is a good choice. That was before I started trying for 0.25" groups at 50 or 75 yds. A little magnification is useful for that.

Simmons is the cheap weaver line by the way. I would not have a BSA scope on a rifle. Everything I have read is they are junk.

I have a dozen or so pretty high quality 22 rimfire rifles these days. Next purchase will be an Anschutz.

Simmons is the cheap weaver line by the way.

Click to expand...

Simmons=China=garbage
Weaver=Japan=good

Same owners, different factories. There's really no valid comparison between the two, save that both have lenses and tubes.

Elkins45 said:

Simmons=China=garbage
Weaver=Japan=good

Same owners, different factories. There's really no valid comparison between the two, save that both have lenses and tubes.

Click to expand...

Weaver is almost exclusively Chinese crap nowadays too and has been for over a decade now. They are about on par with Simmons or Tasco

R.W.Dale said:

Weaver is almost exclusively Chinese crap nowadays too and has been for over a decade now. They are about on par with Simmons or Tasco

Click to expand...

The 2x7 Weaver rimfire I bought last year was made in Japan...or at least that's what it says on the tube.

I've always been partial to Redfields.
Good quality without breaking the bank. I own three of them. No complaints.

R.W.Dale said:

Weaver is almost exclusively Chinese crap nowadays too and has been for over a decade now. They are about on par with Simmons or Tasco

Click to expand...

I dunno about them all, but the Weaver T-36 I have on my Remington 40x is a very good scope. I know at least half a dozen other T-36 users that seem to like them.

I had a Nikon Prostaff 4x power on my 22lr for years. It was clear and a good scope for small game hunting. I now do mostly target shooting and a few years ago bought a Leupold 2 x 7 rimfire to put on my CZ 22lr. The clarity of the Leupold is awesome! And Leupold always comes with a lifetime gaurantee.

giggitygiggity said:

What are your suggestions for a Savage FV-SR? I will mainly be using it for fun and varmint hunting. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Get BSA sweet 22. It is calibrated for 22 and also accommodates different bullet weights.
$80

I have two of them and they are perfect for the application.
Good luck.

Leupold & Nikon Prostaff

I promise you there will come a time when you really want to make the shot.

You will make said shot if you have some good glass on the little .22rifle.

If you just want mediocre then buy the cheap scope.

Cheap is as cheap does. You really did not want to make the shot anyway...

I have the Simmons .22 MAG 3-9 on three of my .22s and they have held up well. They are good scopes for plinking and having fun, even out to a hundred yards on a steel plate, but they are not what i consider to be serious targets guns.

On that heavy barrel Savage of yours, I would look at the Mueller 4-14 APV. Do a search on Rimfire Central. That many positive reviewers cant be wrong.

I bought a 3x9x40mm Bushnell Trophy Xlt Multi X, from Amazon for 115.00. It's been a great scope.

A good shooter will be able to use the tools on hand. That said as buyers of the gear we like to treat ourselves within reason for these purchases. The optical characteristics may stand out better or worse and you may find them acceptable or not.

I've had Leupold M8 4x of the AMT 25/22 Lightning which I really like. I'd have not bought a Leupold but the shop had a fantastic deal. Can appreciate having this scope.

With the recent Marlin 60 I was considering a Burris that a local shop had for $120. The sales guy also brought out a Redfield 2x7 and a Vortex to compare. The Vortex was quite nice yet to my eyes the Redfield ticked the boxes. My financial parameter was sub $200 and the Redfield with Burris rimfire rings came in at $195.

I'd have considered the Nikon P, I just didn't have any local shops that had them to look through.

I am a big believer in the scope being where the action is at. I will buy a cheaper rifle to afford a better scope if it comes down to it....every time. I don't want to be held back by my equipment. I don't always buy the best stuff I can get, but I do buy quality stuff and never take a chance that some mickey mouse scope will work. I guess I just never go into any project and start off with the goal of doing it halfa**ed.

There is no free lunch. You simply can not get a cheap precision optical instrument: those words just don't go together. Like most gun owners, I have purchased more than my share of cheap scopes over the years only to be let down by them. And like a lot of guys, I realized that if I had taken all that money I had spent on cheap junk, I could have purchased a good scope that would have lasted me a life time.

Another thing that I have gotten in a lot of arguments about over the years is the idea that the quality of a scope or the price of a scope is in some way correlated with the cartridge the gun fires. In other words, people can see spending the money on a good quality scope for a centerfire rifle that they only shoot once in a great while: maybe even once or twice a year but they think it is foolish to spend money on a scope for a .22 that they shoot all the time....simply because it is a .22. Currently, I shoot airguns a couple times a week with a group of guys. We shoot for accuracy at 30 yards on an indoor range. The good shooters are firing 10 round groups slightly larger than the diameter of the pellet. I have heard a number of guys say: "I am not spending that kind of money on a scope for a pellet gun". And I say to them: you shoot this pellet rifle Tuesday night, Thrusday, and Sunday. That is three times a week you shoot this rifle, probably 100 times a day, three times a week and you can't see spending the money on a good scope. But you would spend the money for a good scope on a centerfire rifle you only fire once a year ??????? That doesn't make sense to me. If I was going to drop a lot of money on a scope, I would be putting that scope on a rifle I shoot three times a week.

Another way of saying the same thing is to take the amount of money you spend on a scope and divide that by the number of rounds you fire in the rifle the scope is mounted on. To me, it makes all kinds of sense to put the money into the rifle you shoot the most. If you fire one rifle 40 times a year and you fire another rifle 40 times a week, I am putting the best scope on the rifle I fire 40 times a week and I don't care if that rifle is a .22, or an airgun, or whatever. I am getting most use out of the money I spent.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not talking about spending $1800 on a scope for your .22. I personally have Leupold .22 scopes on all my .22s that have a scope on them. Yeah, they are a couple hundred dollars. But again, I shoot my .22s all the time. I definitely average shooting them once a week year round, why wouldn't I want a quality scope on them ?