22lr scope suggestions.

[I6turbo]

Oh, the other thing (that kinda ruins you)......

I've had some REALLY nice scopes on several rifles. I know guys truly believe that their lower end scope is "adequate", whatever that constitutes. I can tell you, that at least in my case, that once you use a high quality scope for a while the differences are quite obvious.

I was at a gun shop. Guy behind the counter had just mounted a scope on his HD AR. All kinds of proud. Has me look thru it. As I moved my head just a little from side to side, the distortion and waves in the sight picture was quite obvious to me. I guess it's all bout expectations.

Again, YMMV

^^ Yep. That's the downside of getting a little bit of eyeball time through a scope that is nicer than you've used before. It makes you aware of the shortcomings of other, lesser scopes that you may have.

A good scope, that is well-matched to your eye (I don't know what factors into this, but IME there's definitely something to it, and it's not the same for everyone so you can't tell just from the specs) is just super pleasant and relaxing to look through. Once you experience it, you won't forget it. I know I won't, anyway. I'd go further and say that if you don't know what I'm talking about, then you've not yet looked through the right scope.

 

[cdb1]

I think this is pretty standard with Simmons scopes. I bought the exact same one at Gander Mountain and the adjustments had no effect on moving the point of impact. I exchanged it for a 4x model and got exactly the same result. Took it back again for a refund which they wouldn't give me, so I ended up with a 3rd one which worked for about a month, and now shoots about 5 inches too low. Can't do anything about it now that Gander Mountain is bankrupt and closed their store here.

At the same time, I've never understood how some people take issue when a person wants a more affordable scope since it would be for "just a .22". When I use that phrase, here's what I mean:

A .22 has almost no recoil, so a scope shouldn't require the same toughness a centerfire would. Also, a .22 is going to be used for shooting at 50 or 75 yards most of the time, so therefore doesn't need a larger and more expensive scope capable of seeing out to 150 or 300 or more yards. So, being "just a .22" shouldn't require something that can see for hundreds of yards, or be able to take a pounding from recoil.

I can agree with that sentiment up to a point. When I'm using a rimfire rifle, most of the time I'm shooting at much smaller objects than I do with centerfire rifles. Ergo, I want good optics. I don't believe one needs a super nice scope but a good scope makes a world of difference to me. The first scope I tried on a rimfire was a Bushnell bubblepack rimfire scope. The scope worked, I could hit stuff. After around six months I shot a friends .22 with a better scope. It was much easier to hit things and the bonus for me was less eye strain(for lack of a better term). I have a $120.00 scope on my .22 LR and a $225.00 scope on my .22 WMR. That's not a lot of money but those scopes are a world apart from $50.00 scopes.

 

[cdb1]

A good scope, that is well-matched to your eye (I don't know what factors into this, but IME there's definitely something to it, and it's not the same for everyone so you can't tell just from the specs) is just super pleasant and relaxing to look through. Once you experience it, you won't forget it.

Different companies specify different coatings and grades of glass on their optics. Since everyone's eyes are different people do see better out of certain optic brands than others. The point was driven home to me over and over when I sold scopes and firearms for two years. It also is reflected in my own experience.

In higher end scopes I don't see as well through Swarovski as I do others and there is no denying Swarovski has some nice glass. I also don't see that well through Nikon, many people do.

 

[wanderinwalker]

^^ Yep. That's the downside of getting a little bit of eyeball time through a scope that is nicer than you've used before. It makes you aware of the shortcomings of other, lesser scopes that you may have.

A good scope, that is well-matched to your eye (I don't know what factors into this, but IME there's definitely something to it, and it's not the same for everyone so you can't tell just from the specs) is just super pleasant and relaxing to look through. Once you experience it, you won't forget it. I know I won't, anyway. I'd go further and say that if you don't know what I'm talking about, then you've not yet looked through the right scope.

This is so very accurate. I have 3 Leupold scopes currently: a VX-1 2-7x28mm rimfire, a VX-2 3-9x33mm EFR and an FX-II 2.5x. The 3-9 EFR is head and shoulders above the VX-1 in clarity on the range. Which isn't to say the VX-1 is bad, because it's a great, lightweight, compact scope that's perfect on a bolt-action .22 sporter. But oh wow, looking through the VX-2 properly adjusted to whatever range I'm shooting at is a treat. (Haven't had a chance to get the FX out on the range yet, my club's rifle ranges have been undergoing renovation.)

For the OP, get a Leupold 2-7x28mm rimfire scope and go shoot happy. Or you could probably be well served by the fixed 4x as well, depending on your needs and wants.

 

[CraigC]

When I was younger and dumber, I bought blister pack scopes for. 22 rifles. I was ignorant enough to believe that was all a .22 needed. I also thought all scopes were kinda hazy and that you had to zero your rifle every time you shot it, because it seemed like you did. It took me years to learn my lesson. I paid tuition on that lesson every time I bought another cheap scope that some other ignorant individual said was great, especially since it was "just a. 22".....Now, I try to buy the best glass I think I can afford. .22 shooting is also more enjoyable.

One of the more foolish things one can do is buy something cheap to save money

Amen!

At the same time, I've never understood how some people take issue when a person wants a more affordable scope since it would be for "just a .22". When I use that phrase, here's what I mean:

A .22 has almost no recoil, so a scope shouldn't require the same toughness a centerfire would. Also, a .22 is going to be used for shooting at 50 or 75 yards most of the time, so therefore doesn't need a larger and more expensive scope capable of seeing out to 150 or 300 or more yards. So, being "just a .22" shouldn't require something that can see for hundreds of yards, or be able to take a pounding from recoil.

I have had SEVERAL cheap scopes fail, probably close to ten. Every single one of them failed on "just a .22". Including a Tasco Pronghorn 4x40 that the reticle broke on the first shot, mounted on a 10/22. So popping a cheap scope on "just a .22" is not a guarantee that everything will be peachy. Buying a cheap scope is a roll of the dice no matter what it gets mounted on.

Range really has nothing to do with it. Rimfires are typically used on much smaller targets. It takes more scope to hunt squirrels out to 100yds than it does deer at 300yds.

 

[Axis II]

I'm thinking my Simmons 3-9-40 is broken as i cant get it to hold a group for anything. the tasco pronghorn would shoot a ragged hole but dropping it in the rocks it broke so went simmons and cant seem to get it to adjust.

Nikon rimfire, vortex rimfire or redfield? a $200 rimfire scopes out of the question as of now.

 

[red rick]

I would look at the Vortex Crossfire II 2-7X32 if you want to stay below the $200 dollar range scopes . It runs about $120 dollars shipped .

 

[Axis II]

I would look at the Vortex Crossfire II 2-7X32 if you want to stay below the $200 dollar range scopes . It runs about $120 dollars shipped .

7x in that model enough for squirrel hunting? we run dogs and take headshots. I don't get much 22lr time in other than sight in and hunting. I didn't squirrel hunt last year so haven't shot the rifle since about march 2016.

 

[red rick]

It is great up to 70 yds. for head shots . I shoot spent shotgun shells with my 2-7x28 at around 75 yds. . The Nikon ProStaff Rimfire II comes in a 3-9x40 and a 4-12x40 model . The 3-9 runs about the same price as the Vortex , it's heavier and longer than the Vortex . What power were you using on your last scope ? Was that enough power ? These two scopes will be clearer than those cheap Tasco and Simmons scopes . I find it hard to pickup moving squirrels with a scope at it's max power . If they are moving a lot I usually have my scope turned down to 2 or 3 power . They are usually within 60 yds. of me . The more you turn up the magnification , the less field of view you are going to have .

 

[Axis II]

It is great up to 70 yds. for head shots . I shoot spent shotgun shells with my 2-7x28 at around 75 yds. . The Nikon ProStaff Rimfire II comes in a 3-9x40 and a 4-12x40 model . The 3-9 runs about the same price as the Vortex , it's heavier and longer than the Vortex . What power were you using on your last scope ? Was that enough power ? These two scopes will be clearer than those cheap Tasco and Simmons scopes . I find it hard to pickup moving squirrels with a scope at it's max power . If they are moving a lot I usually have my scope turned down to 2 or 3 power . They are usually within 60 yds. of me . The more you turn up the magnification , the less field of view you are going to have .

The rifle came with a 4x-32 which i got rid of and put a tasco 3-9-32 on it and would crank it to 9x. with the dog barking and howling at the squirrel it usually sits on the limbs and doesn't move. now its wearing a 3-9-40 Simmons which wont track so haven't use the gun in a year. I've put maybe 50-75rds through the gun so not sure what's best for it and always squirrel hunting with a shotgun so only have shot 2 with the rifle so again not sure whats best.

 

[cdb1]

I have the Crossfire II Rimfire 2-7 on my Model 60. It works fine for squirrels at a distance - at least for me and my eyes aren't the greatest.

 

[Axis II]

I have the Crossfire II Rimfire 2-7 on my Model 60. It works fine for squirrels at a distance - at least for me and my eyes aren't the greatest.

I have several of the larger vortex rifles. 4-12/6-18 and love the clarity of them. do you do okay say shooting them out of tree tops? Im worried the 7x wont give me enough power but im used to leaving stuff on 18x for varmints.

 

[cdb1]

I have no trouble in tree tops.

 

[red rick]

I agree with cdb1 , I have no trouble hitting squirrels in the tree tops with my 2-7 scope , but they are not 100 yds. away either . If you are keeping your old scope cranked up on 9x , you might want to consider a 9x or more scope with an adjustable objective .

 

[ColtPythonElite]

A skill marksman with good equipment who knows his rifle, load trajectory and abilities should have little trouble on squirrels heads with a 7x scope at 75 yards.

 

[Sniper66]

I'm looking for a decent quality and priced 22lr scope for my savage mark2 bolt action. The rifle is mostly used for squirrel hunting and target shooting. I was looking at the Nikon 22 scopes but the bdc doesn't make much sense to me for a 50yard gun.

I've had different brands on .22s.....Weaver, Burris, Redfield, Bushnell, and Leupold. On my favorite .22, a Remington 541-S, I settled on a Leupold VX-III 2.5-8X 36mm. It's a superb scope. Some of the others were adequate, but the Leupold is a joy to use. If I hear a rustle in the leaves I can use the scope to pick out an otherwise well-hidden squirrel in the midst of the leaves...have done it many times. The other scopes were not so good at that. You can get along OK with cheaper scopes, but if you can, save up a stash of cash and buy a better scope.

 

[Axis II]

lets bring this guy back!

I purchased a new rifle and want to put something decent on it but something that doesn't bankrupt me either. Ill be shooting at paper and squirrels over a dog. I'm thinking AO is what I need for the various situations on paper 50-75-100yards. I found a Bushnell custom 4-12-40 AO for about $60 on sale. Im thinking I may need something a bit better? Price range $150-200.

 

[toivo]

lets bring this guy back!

I purchased a new rifle and want to put something decent on it but something that doesn't bankrupt me either. Ill be shooting at paper and squirrels over a dog. I'm thinking AO is what I need for the various situations on paper 50-75-100yards. I found a Bushnell custom 4-12-40 AO for about $60 on sale. Im thinking I may need something a bit better? Price range $150-200.

Hawke makes a nice AO scope:
https://us.hawkeoptics.com/vantage-2-7x32-ao-mil-dot.html

If you want to go up another level in quality, the Weaver 3-9x32 is really nice:
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1...2mm-adjustable-objective-dual-x-reticle-matte

If you look for sales, you might be able to come close to your $200 price.

 

[2011ERIC]

The magnification range and price is up to you. Personally, I buy the best that I can afford. It’s just something I learned through trial and error. My only suggestion is that parallax can be corrected to short distances. For example, my Sightron STAC 4x20 corrects from 8 yards to infinity.

 

[Axis II]

So can someone help me with this parallax stuff? If I have a legit 22 scope set to 50 yards will I have issues at 100 yards? I looked at a Nikon efr and the crosshairs are super sharp I’m worried they may fade out for squirrel hunting. Anyone have feelings on that?

 

[cdb1]

I have the Clearidge Ultra RM 3-9x32 AO and highly recommend it. I’ve heard that it and the Weaver referenced by toivo are the same scope, the Clearidge costs less though.

 

[glc24]

I put a Nikon ProStaff Target EFR on my Mossberg 42M (c). IMO, it's an awesome scope.

 

[2011ERIC]

So can someone help me with this parallax stuff? If I have a legit 22 scope set to 50 yards will I have issues at 100 yards? I looked at a Nikon efr and the crosshairs are super sharp I’m worried they may fade out for squirrel hunting. Anyone have feelings on that?

If you are considering the Nikon EFR scopes, I believe they focus from 10 yards to infinity. The Nikon’s nice are optics and are wise choices for rimfires, IMO. They should be able to handle whatever distance you want to shoot.

 

[glc24]

The adjustable objective on the Target EFR might be something a lot of folks might not want to fool with, which is understandable. I don't have a problem with adjusting it. I actually got pretty decent at doing it quickly!

 

[cdb1]

I don’t care for Nikon scopes because their glass and my eyes aren’t compatible. There are two exceptions though, the original Buckmasters and the Target EFR. I’d be happy with the Nikon Target EFR on any rimfire.