Scope for a Savage Mark II FV

[BigBL87]

Will be buying a Savage Mark II FV soon and need to get a scope for it since it doesn't have factory irons. Looking for a scope for the following uses:

-Plinking, ranges usually 20-50 yards, no longer than 100 yards.
-Occasional range shooting at paper.
-Friendly competition.

Here are the 3 scope I'm considering at the moment:

Nikon 6320 Prostaff 3-9 X 40mm Matte Riflescope (BDC)

Crosman CPA416AORG2 Centerpoint 4-16x40mm Riflescope

BSA Sweet .22 3 - 9x40 mm Scope Matte Black

From what I've read, the Nikon seems to be far and away the best quality, as evidenced by the price. I'm new to optics and shooting in general, though, and didn't know if the lack of parallax adjustment would be an issue with most shots being under 50 yards. The main reason I'm looking at the other 2 is that they have the parallax adjustment. Having adjustable magnification is a plus but not an absolute must for me.

Wondering which of the 3 is the best for my intended usage, or if there's another scope out there that I haven't considered. The absolute top of my budget is $120, although I'd prefer to spend less.

 

[greyling22]

First, are you going to be shooting off a bench/rest, or offhand? I find that anything over 4 or 5x is pretty depressing to shoot offhand. I weave and wiggle all over the place.

If you will be shooting supported, take a look at the mueller APV. http://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Rifle-Scope-Black-4-5-14/dp/B000SULCTA 120 bucks, 4-12x, parallax adjustment, and pretty nice glass. It is extremely popular over on rimfirecentral. I have one myself on a cz452, and it compares favorably with scopes that cost more.

Cheaper scopes will generally:
*have a tendency for the crosshairs to mess up under heavy recoil (not an issue for you)
*have shorter eye relief (the distance from your eye to the lens of the scope)
*smaller field of view (how much can you see through the scope at a given power. more helps target acquisition)
*be darker. (think of it like turning up the brightness of a laptop or phone. The brighter the easier to see, or, how white a white piece of paper looks through the scope. This is a bigger deal in dim light than it is in the middle of the afternoon)
*have less resolution ((I guess that's the term) or, the ability to see details. You might be able to read a sentence or see individual .22 holes on a piece target with a nice scope that you cannot with a cheaper one.

So that might or might not mean you need a nicer scope. Of the 3 you listed, I might grab the bsa (it's ok. plenty serviceable, just suffers from a lot of the cheap scope flaws above) and wish I had the apv if I was off a bench, or this vortex crossfire rimfire http://www.amazon.com/Vortex-Crossfire-Rimfire-Reticle-CF2-31001R/dp/B00794LKMW if I was going to be shooting offhand. The rimfire scopes (and most shotgun scopes) have a parallax set at 50-75 yards as opposed to the usual 100yds for rifles. Either way, don't get too hung up on parallax. Odds are that any of those scope will outshoot the ammunition you are using. parallax will mess you up maybe .5in, whereas a lot of bulk ammo is only good for a 1.5" group.

but cheap scopes are like cheap sunglasses: If you've never had a good pair and don't know what you are missing, cheap is fine. Once you get a decent one, it's hard to go back. At least, that has been my experience.

 

[BigBL87]

I plan on shooting both off hand and with a bipod. If I was shooting competitively I'd spend more butI'm buying a 22 mainly so I have a fun gun that has a cheaper appetite than my 9mm or 12 gauge. If parallax isn't likely to affect me, I'm thinking I might be leaning towards the Nikon because they seem to have less QC issues.

 

[greyling22]

nikon is fine, and if you get one you will be pleased, but I really think you can do better, especially for that kind of money. this is a pretty good article: http://opticsthoughts.com/?page_id=77 the guy compares a bushnell, nikon, redfield, vortex, and burris. I personally spent part of today comparing a burris fullfield 2 and a vortex diamondback, and the vortex was clearly a better piece of glass.

Also, nikon's customer service and warranty is not as good as some of the american scope makers, and to my knowlege, their qc and build quality are not in any way noteworthy.

I guess I am just kind of anti-nikon because I think there are better values out there, and the rear bell of the nikon's is HUGE. (especially the newer ones. the older ones like you linked are not as big) As in, bolt handle clearance huge, and unfortunately, that seems to be the growing trend.

 

[toivo]

For a rimfire, get a scope with AO (parallax adjustment). It helps with the shorter distances.

Just my 2¢.

 

[BigBL87]

I really like that APV the more I look at it and read about it. Just wish it went a little lower magnification wise but besides that it looks like exactly what I'm looking for.

 

[frankiestoys]

I have a Bushnell 3.5x10x32 on my Savage MKII and it does a great job out to 50 but for my older eyes ill be up grading to more power for 100 yard shots .BSA builds a decent inexpensive scope I had one on my 22-250 ...6x18x40 I think it was , good magnification for 100 + yards

 

[BigBL87]

Just thought I'd let you guys know I ended up going with the AVP. Should get here before the gun actually, ended up having some issues with Bud's Gun Shop because we used my wife's credit card. Finally got is straightened out but now I'll have a scope with no rifle for a little while, haha.