Great optics for all?

[CoyoteSix]

Hey THR!


I wanted some input. Aside from my SD and HD guns, I pretty much only shoot .22 rifles. I practice steel shooting at extended distances (For .22lr anyway). I'm always looking at some .22 rifle or another.


My thing is: I appreciate the value of a good scope from a quality manufacturer (Leupold, Nikon etc.) but is putting a high-ish dollar scope on multiple rimfire rifles practical?


Thanks THR!

 

[allaroundhunter]

Depends on what you want to do with it. Do you want to be able to be as accurate as the gun is physically possible of being during most daylight hours? Than yes, you will pay for it. Do you want a scope that you can just plink with for fun with reasonable accuracy? Well, then you can pay a little less.

I have a less expensive scope on my .22 compared to some, it costed me about $175. However, I have a friend who has an extremely customized Ruger 10/22 that he has a $1,500 Leupold Mark 4 LR/T scope on. That gun will shoot dimes at 100 yards without much effort. I cannot shoot my .22 too well out past 150 yards, however he has no problems going out to, and even past, 300 yards.

 

[Walkalong]

Practical? Dunno. Desirable? Yes.

 

[Jackal]

Get a few nice used Weaver K4's. Problem solved.

 

[Geno]

I picked up a 4X Leupold for my .22LRs about 2 years ago, even after having been advised that the Nikon was as good, and half the cost. About a month back, I had to purchase an additional .22LR a scope. This time, I purchased a 4X Nikon. It's every bit as nice, and half the cost.

As an alternative, BKL makes some awesome mounts. Here is the link for their dovetail to Weaver base: http://www.bkltech.com/Dovetail-to-Weaver-Picatinny-Adaptor-Mounts-s/7.htm

This is the type of BKL base I use: http://www.bkltech.com/BKl-1-6-Screw-Unitized-Dovetail-Mount-p/bkl-260.htm

Either will make scope sharing very easy.

Geno

 

[mnhntr]

Hawke has been a great rimfire scope on my 17hmr

 

[bdbecker]

I was in the same boat as you when I was putting together my 10/22. I finally settled on a Mueller APV 4.5-14 and have been very happy with it over the last few years. Its got a lot of the high end scope features for a reasonable price.

Edit - After re-reading my post I realized I left out the main point I had in my mind. If you have the resources, high quality glass is always the way to go - you can always put it on a "more worthy" rifle down the road. I tend to use mid level glass on my non-hunting firearms because I can't justify the higher cost.

 

[Outlaw Man]

On an extremely customized .22 rifle, like a Volquartsen, I could see dropping a chunk of change on a higher-end scope. On a stock, entry model .22? Maybe not so much.

As others said, it depends on what you're wanting to do with it. When you start to really try to reach out to a long range, and under adverse conditions, quality glass can definitely keep you shooting.

 

[beatledog7]

Part of the price of a high-dollar scope is robustness for standing up to recoil. Scopes designed for .22LR do not need to be nearly as recoil-robust as those designed for centerfire rifles; therefore, their makers can put more production dollars into the quality of the optics and save on the mechanisms.

What does that mean? It means (at least in theory) that a .22LR scope buyer should buy a .22LR-specific scope, thus putting his dollars into the quality optics he needs rather than mechanical robustness he doesn't need.

 

[45_auto]

My thing is: I appreciate the value of a good scope from a quality manufacturer (Leupold, Nikon etc.) but is putting a high-ish dollar scope on multiple rimfire rifles practical?

That pretty much depends on your definition of "high-ish" dollar and what you consider "practical" given your financial situation.

I have 7 .22's that I can recall at the moment with scopes. Practical for me means that 3 of them have scopes priced in the neighborhood of $500, which I consider to be low-mid range. Leupold VX2 6-18, Leupold VX2 4-12, and a Sightron SII Big Sky 4-16. 3 others with scopes wear cheaper scopes in the $100 price range. The rifles with the less expensive scopes don't have the mechanical accuracy capabilities of the 3 with the more expensive scopes (better barrels, triggers, etc). An AR-15 in .22LR has a Nikon P-22 on it that for some reason will not group consistently on either of the rifles that it has been on.

 

[Fishbed77]

I was in the same boat as you when I was putting together my 10/22. I finally settled on a Mueller APV 4.5-14 and have been very happy with it over the last few years. Its got a lot of the high end scope features for a reasonable price.

THIS. ^^^^

I have a Mueller APV on my accurized 10/22. It's a fantastic scope for the money, and if you go over to rimfirecentral.com, you'll see that the guys there highly recommend it as well.

 

[scramasax]

I have a couple of close friends that are retired SF snipers. They both agree that the best optic for the money is a Nikon. No surprise to me, I was used to Nikon lenses when I used to shoot 35mm pictures. As to spending money on a scope for a .22 I need all the help I can get to see those little holes.

 

[adelbridge]

Do you want to be able to be as accurate as the gun is physically possible of being during most daylight hours? Than yes, you will pay for it

Someone please explain to me how spending more money on a scope will tighten your groups. I have tested hundreds of scopes and I have seen $200 scopes have the same optical clarity as $800 scopes. I can objectively say I have seen good optical clarity on a $35 NCStar scope under ideal conditions, full disclosure I still wouldnt recommend anything in NcStar line to anyone. Scopes have a diminishing margin of return after a certain price point. Optical clarity tends to peak in the $150-$200 range and spending more will get you marginal gains. Internally a high dollar scope MAY provide you better controls and a beefier platform but we are talking .22s here. FYI rimfire scopes come with rimfire parallax so you really have to decide how far you plan on shooting before you buy a scope of any sort.

 

[JPG19]

adelbridge - There is a lot more to a scope than quality of glass. Precision and accuracy of turret adjustments, robustness of the scope itself, amount of adjustment allowed by the scope's turrets/tube, etc.

There are many other important, possibly more important, aspects to a good scope than just having clear glass. Modern manufacturing allows, as you stated, even cheap scopes to have good glass.

Edit - My eyes somehow skipped your second the last line. Yes, we are talking .22's here and on that note, I agree. It just drives me crazy though when someone picks up a scope, looks through the glass, and doesn't consider anything else. Sorry for the mistake.

 

[Outlaw Man]

I disagree that optical clarity peaks at $200. Maybe considering useful clarity at .22 ranges and if you stopped looking after $300-400.

No, he doesn't need a Swarovski or Schmidt and Bender on his .22, but I'd like to see the $200 scope that has the same optical clarity.

Totally agree there are other factors to consider, though.

 

[j1]

I see no reason why not. Good scopes make for good shooting and a lot if fun.

 

[jmr40]

Decent scopes start at around $200. I will agree, that many $200 scopes are "almost" as good as many $800 scopes. You'd really have to work hard to notice the difference. And for many uses that is all that is needed.

On a .22 I'd not use the really cheap budget scopes, but there are many choices around $200 or slightly less. The low end Nikon Prostaff's, Leupold VX-1, Burris FF-II, Redfield's Revolution and Vortex scopes run $175-$200 and are decent scope values. I have examples of each on many rifles, even a couple of centerfires.

The higher you go up the price scale, the better the scope. A $200 scope is probably twice the scope as most $150 scopes. But once you get above $200-$300 the quality comes in very small increments. My $330 VX-2 is darn near as good as my $1,000 Zeiss Diavari. Bought used at under $400, I wouldn't pay full price for a scope that expensive. My $200 Redfield and Burris are only a small step below the Leupold in quality and I'd feel perfectly fine using them.

But not anything less. I've bought/traded too many guns over the years and had many of the cheap junk come on used rifles I've bought. They may appear good enough, but if you ever use a really good scope you'll understand why it is worth a little extra expense.

 

[witchhunter]

The old man used to say "The best you can get is sorry enough".

 

[ColtPythonElite]

Buy once...Cry once.